1 S.A.No.237/09. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.237 OF 2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.B.R.Sabale, advocate for the appellant. Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 04.02.2011. 1. This is defendant's Second Appeal. The present Respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand). The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant preferred an appeal. The appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court. The defendant being aggrieved by the same has filed the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.B.R. Sabale, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the said agreement has not been proved as is required under the law. The 2 S.A.No.237/09. said agreement was not at all admissible in evidence. The defendant had never received the said amount as he was never in need of money. The blank signatures were obtained on the said document. All these aspects have not been considered by the Courts below. 3. Per contra, Mr.Bhavthankar, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the said agreement is not required to be registered and the said objection is not sustainable. The witness have proved the said document by virtue of which Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand) were advanced to the defendant. No oral evidence can be led as against the documentary evidence in view of Section 91 and Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the agreement has been proved. The witnesses have also withstood the acid test of cross-examination. There is no perversity in appreciation of evidence. The Second appeal being sans 3 S.A.No.237/09. substantial question of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.04.02.2011. asp/office/sa237.09