-1- GPN-J-2459-ARHCBN-3-04-1,00,000-ALA4* [Spl.-H.C.,A.S.,C.D.79e. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No. 37/2005 Mangru Zingru Tarvekar -versus- Manohar Natthuji Amle ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 15, 2009. Heard Advocate Shri Vaidya, for appellant/ original plaintiff and Advocate Shri Fund for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Suit filed by the present appellant for grant of specific performance was decreed by the Trial Court by relying on Xerox copy of agreement Exh.73. Lower Appellate Court found that the original agreement was not produced and leave to lead secondary evidence was not sought and similarly xerox copy was not admitted by the original defendant no.1 [ present respondent no.1]. With the assistance of both the learned counsel I have perused the judgment of Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court has -2- considered the findings reached by the trial Court where trial court found that the said xerox copy was produced when the appellant / plaintiff was in witness box during his examination-in-chief and it was exhibited. It found that during cross, the plaintiff stated that the original was torn by his son. In subsequent paragraph, the Lower Appellate Court find that a person who has claimed to have written the document P.W.2 – Vasant Bhupal, was only 15 yeas of age at the relevant time and therefore could not have executed that document. In paragraph no.23 the Lower Appellate Court has found that hand writing on xerox copy (Exh.73) was denied by the present respondent no.1. In these circumstances, it has found that though sale consideration was shown to be Rs. 10,000/-, the market value was about Rs. 60,000/-. Thus after taking into account all these facts, the Lower Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree of Trial Court. I do not find any substantial question of law arising in the matter for consideration. Second Appeal is thus dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.