1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.188/2008 Pandurang Ghulba Dodke ...Versus... Lanka @ Nanda Pandurang Kshirsagar and another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri K.R. Lambat, Adv. for appellant] CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED :- 06.06.2008 Heard Shri Lambat, learned Counsel for the appellant. The matter was also heard on 3.6.2008 and was adjourned to today. The Courts below have concurrently found that the present appellant/original plaintiff has failed to prove the agreement for sale between the parties. The inconsistent evidence which has come on record is also appropriately commented upon by both the Courts below. Before me for the first time xerox copies of certain documents are produced to point out that the xerox copies contain some statements which are 2 prejudicial to the interest of original vendors. Though the original vendor has entered the witness box, the appellant is not in a position to demonstrate that these statements were put to said vendor in cross-examination. It is also sought to be argued that the lower appellate Court has granted permission under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to produce certain documents on record. However, there is no such ground in the memo of appeal and also there is no such disclosure in it. Thus, there is nothing before this Court to hold that the concurrent appreciation of material on record by the Courts below is in any way perverse. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE ssw