1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.611 OF 2008 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.84 OF 1999 IN CIVIL SUIT NO.87 OF 1995 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.388 OF 2006 Shri Milind Eknath Potkar & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Smt.Janaki Laxman Lokhande, since deceased through legal representatives: 1a) to 1e) & Ors. ....Respondents ...... Mrs.Nutan Moily i/b Mr.D.S.Sakhalkar for Appellants. Ms.P.U.Badadare i/b Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for Respondents. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED:- NOVEMBER 24, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below. The Courts below have found that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish the case pleaded by them of execution of the Agreement for consideration. The argument of the Appellants that the Courts 2 below have completely glossed over the crucial aspect that the Defendants did not enter the witness box, clearly overlooks that the Plaintiffs were primarily expected to prove the case pleaded by them. In the present case, they have failed to do so. In such a situation, the fact that Defendants have not entered the witness box does not take the matter any further. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Dismissed. 2. In view of dismissal of second appeal, nothing survives for consideration in civil application, the same is disposed of accordingly. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J