HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : B!LASPUR Single Bench: Hon’bie Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh.‘ J. Second Appeal No.1 0212008 Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Present: - Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for the appellant, ORAL ORDER s (Passed on 26-03-2008) Heard on l.A.No.2, which is an application for taking document. on record. (2) Considered and allowed. Document is taken on record. (3) Heard on admission. (4) The appeilant/plaintiff is aggrieved by thejudgment and decree dated 23—08-2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pondra Road, District Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.1-A/2007 whereby the judgment and decree dated 18-09-2006 passed by the Chrii Judge Class l, Pendra Road in Civil Suit No.3-A/2001 declining to grant u Appeilant : Premchand Jaisawal S/o Ramdas, Plaintiff Jaisawal. aged about 62 years, R/o Viliage Pendra Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Respondents : 1. Harihar Prasad S/o Nangi, Caste Defendants Mahara, aged about 52 years, R/o Village Pendra Tahsil Pendra Road. District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Chhattisgarh Government Through Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) relief of specific performance of contract dated 12094999, was - amrmad. (5) I have perused the judgment of the lower appellate Court as also of the tria! Court. i have also perused me relevant documents filed by the Ieamed counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. Both the Courts below have declined to grant relief of specific performance of contract on the following grounds:- (A) That Dalu Ram, scribe of the document Ex.P.1 was not examined. (B)V That the document Ex.P.1 was not signed by the plaintiff i.e., the purchaser. (C) There was a serious discrepancy in thestatementau. on oath of attesting witness-Santram. g (D) That relationship of moneylender and debtor existed between the parties. (E) That the defence taken by the respondent/defendant No.1 herein‘that the plaintiff had got his signatures on Ex.P.1 upon a loan; transaction is plausible, and; (F) Lastly, in Ex.P.1, the valuation of thesuttpropedy was grossly undervalued. (6) The finding recorded by both the Courts below is a finding of r fact and recorded aher proper appreciation of evidence. Grant of specific performance of contract is a discretionary relief and the discretion exercised by both the Courts below in refusing specinee; performance of contract is in accordance with law. (7) In my considered opinion, no subsiantia! question of law arises for determination in this appea! which is accordingly dismissed at the sage of admissian. i. A.No.1. an application for grant of stay also stands dismissed. ' Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge TUNEHB