1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 342/2009 Harisao s/o Pandurang Wakodikar aged about 71 yrs. Occu.-Business, R/o Timki Tinkhamba Circle No.15/91 Ward No.48, Nagpur. APPELLANT VERSUS Purushottam s/o Harbaji Kubde, aged about 56 yrs. Occu.-LIC Agent, R/o Umrer, Dist. Nagpur. RESPONDENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Joshi h/f Shri A.S. Jaiswal, counsel for the appellant. Shri N.A. Vyawahare, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 5, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the appellant-defendant had entered into an agreement of sale on 28.09.2002 and the respondent-plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but, the appellant had failed to perform his part. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the agreement dated 28.09.2002 was duly proved and the plaintiff was entitled to grant of a decree of specific performance of contract. 2 The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to substantial question of law. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that Exhs.17 and 18 are not the agreements executed between the parties though the defendant admits that there was an agreement to sell the property on 28.09.2002, is liable to be rejected as both the Courts have duly relied on Exhs.17 & 18 and found that the said documents are proved by the plaintiff. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE