1. S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.166/2009 Harnam Singh Vs. Balu Singh & Ors. Date of Order :: 16.8.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Kishan Bansal, on behalf of Mr. H.S. Sidhu, for the appellant. ... By the judgment dated 6.11.1999, the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Kolayat set aside the registered sale-deed dated 18.6.1963 relating to Khasara No.123 Village Ranasar, Tehsil Kolayat. The judgment and decree aforesaid came to be affirmed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 7.3.2009. While pressing this second appeal, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the courts below failed to appreciate that no adequate opportunity was given to the appellant-defendant to adduce the evidence. It is also contended that the courts below apparently committed an error while not drawing presumption regarding genuineness of the document, as required to be drawn as per Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. I have examined the impugned judgments, from the perusal whereof, it is apparent that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 13.8.1999 and thereafter on 25.9.1999, 3.11.1999 and on 5.11.1999 opportunity was afforded to the defendant-appellant for adducing the evidence but he failed to avail the same, as such, I do not find any merit in the argument that the opportunity for adducing evidence was not adequately given. The other question regarding presumption as per Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, suffice it to note that the fact that the plaintiff came to know about the sale-deed in August, 1993 has not been denied and also that the original document was not produced by the defendant before the trial court. In such circumstance, the presumption sought to be drawn as argued is not available. It is further relevant to note that the appeal preferred before the first appellate court was barred by limitation in view of the fact that the original court decreed the suit on 6.11.1999. A copy of the judgment and decree was taken by the defendant- appellant on 19.5.2000 and thereafter the appeal was filed on 23.6.2000. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that no information as a matter of fact was given by the learned 3. counsel for the defendant regarding the judgment and decree dated 6.11.1999, as such, delay was caused in filing the appeal. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the appellant even failed to satisfy the court regarding the delay occurred in filing the appeal i.e. of one month and four days even after obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 6.11.1999 by the appellant. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any wrong with the judgments and decree impugned. The second appeal is dismissed accordingly. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Sanjay/ 4.