JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. This second appeal has come up for final hearing alongwith Writ Petition No. 32294 of 1990.
2. The writ petition was filed challenging the orders dated 20.4.1989 and 17.5.1990 in Original Suit No. 1081 of 1986, Shafiuddin v. Mughisuddin and Anr. deciding issue Nos. 4 and 5. These two issues were framed and decided as a preliminary issue. Issue No. 4 was regarding Section 10, C.P.C. and issue No. 5 was on the question of jurisdiction. Learned Vth Additional Civil Judge, Meerut decided issue No. 5 holding that the jurisdiction to decide the suit is with the Court at Hapur, district Ghaziabad. The findings arrived at by the Additional Civil Judge Vth, that Meerut Courts had no jurisdiction was on the basis that the disputed property was situated at Hapur. The disputed agreement to sale was also executed before the Sub-Registrar, Hapur and, therefore, after the new district was carved out, Meerut Court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. The Court at Meerut declined to record its finding on issue No. 4 vide order dated 20.4.1989. These orders were challenged by filing Misc. Appeal No. 162 of 1989 in the Court of IIIrd Additional District Judge, Meerut Misc. Appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 17.5.1990. The aforesaid two orders are impugned in the writ petition which is being decided alongwith second appeal. Subsequently the plaintiff-respondent instituted O.S. No. 172 of 1988-Jagdish Singh and Anr. v. Shafuiddin and Anr. at Ghaziabad. The suit was decreed on 6.12.1995. The judgment and decree was challenged in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1996 which was dismissed on 18.11.1996 by the IIIrd Additional District Judge. Ghaziabad. Both the judgments are challenged in the instant second appeal.
3. It is evident that the writ petition is against a decision on the preliminary issue in the suit filed by the appellant at Meerut. The Court has already recorded its finding on merits and declined to exercise jurisdiction. This finding was confirmed in appeal, I come to a conclusion that the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant himself has been rendered infructuous. I do not think now a decision in the writ petition is going to make any material difference. No doubt the operation of the orders impugned in the writ petition deciding the jurisdiction was stayed but since the proceeding in respect of the subsequent suit at Ghaziabad was not stayed, the suit has been decided finally after the appellant filed his written statement and contested the suit. The dispute regarding power-of-attorney and the document executed on the basis of the said power-of-attorney stands decided in the suit instituted at Ghaziabad at the instance of the respondent and confirmed in appeal. The two Courts at Meerut have dismissed the suit and the first appeal. Assuming the decision in the writ petition is in favour of the petitioner, it is of no consequence. It is a fait accompli. However I have also examined the impugned order in the writ petition. The courts below have decided the preliminary issue and there is no error apparent on the face of record. The property is situated at Ghaziabad and the registration was also done at the relevant time when Hapur was a part of Meerut. After the new district came in existence, the Courts have correctly declined to exercise jurisdiction, accordingly, I do not find any merit and the Writ Petition No. 32294 of 1990 is dismissed.
4. Now I proceed to decide the second appeal instituted by the plaintiff-respondent.
5. The Original Suit No. 172 of 1988 was for specific performance of the contract. An agreement to sale was executed on 9.9.1986. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No. 1 is the owner of the disputed property. He alongwith one Majharuddin executed a power-of-attorney on 22.6.1983. The registration was done in the office of Sub-Registrar, Meerut. The defendant No. 2 was given the authority to enter into the transaction in respect of the land situated in Delhi, Ghaziabad, Mawana and Meerut. The agreement to sale was entered into on the basis of said power-of-attorney in respect of the land shown at the foot of the plaint for an amount of Rs. 2,20,000. Rs. 1,90,000 was paid as earnest money in the office of Sub-Registrar, Hapur at the time of execution of agreement to sale. It was agreed upon between the parties that the sale deed will be executed on the basis of the aforesaid agreement on or before 31.12.1987. The defendants were required to obtain certificate from the Income Tax Department before the execution of the sale deed. The defendants, despite request by the plaintiff failed to get the requisite certificate from the Income Tax Department and execute the sale deed. With a view to usurp the earnest money, an Original Suit No. 1081 of 1986 was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Meerut, which the Courts dismissed on a preliminary issue holding that the Meerut Court had no jurisdiction. A notice was sent to the defendants which was replied by them denying the power-of-attorney and the subsequent agreement to sale. The suit was instituted by the contesting plaintiff-respondent for specific performance. A number of issues were framed by the trial court. The suit was decreed on 6.12.1995. The appellant preferred a regular first appeal in the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. The judgment and decree of the trial court was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.11.1996. Both the Judgments are under challenge in this second appeal. This second appeal is admitted on the following questions of law:
1. Whether the suit in question was liable to be stayed under Section 10, C.P.C. on the ground that the question of the validity of mukhtarnama was pending decision of the High Court in a writ petition?
2. Whether a copy of the mukhtarnama could have been acted upon in the absence of production of original or in the absence of proper procedure being adopted for putting in secondary evidence?
3. Whether the relief was barred for lack of proof on the question of payment by the plaintiffs to defendant No. 2 in view of the two contradictory statements regarding payment?
6. The first question raised is regarding stay of the proceedings in the suit during the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 32294 of 1990 and applicability of Section 10, C.P.C. it has already been held above that the proceedings in this Court in the writ petition was against an order deciding the question, whether the Courts at Meerut or at Ghaziabad has appropriate jurisdiction to decide the matter. The suit at the instance of the appellant and the first appeal was dismissed on a preliminary issue. The proceedings in the present suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent continued at Ghaziabad. Since only operation of the order was stayed, the pendency of the writ petition is of no consequence. The question in issue was the validity of power-of-attorney and the document executed on the basis of power-of-attorney. These substantial issues were not decided by Meerut Court in Original Suit No. 1081 of 1986. Once the proceedings in the suit was instituted by the respondent in the competent court and the court of Ghaziabad was continuing in Original Suit No. 172 of 1988 and the appellant all along contested the matter, filed his written statement and lead evidence, the question of applicability of Section 10, C.P.C. could not be raised. It is also to be noted that since Ghaziabad was a part of Meerut district at the time when the disputed document was executed but subsequently when the district was bifurcated, the Jurisdiction fell within the limits of Ghaziabad, no illegality whatsoever or to say irregularity has been committed if the suit has been decided by the courts at Ghaziabad. In case the appellant wanted to pursue his plaint/suit then he should have preferred his suit at Ghaziabad. The appellant, on the contrary tried to delay the proceedings on the pretext of pendency of the writ petition. Admittedly the property in question is situated at Hapur and the agreement was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Hapur, it cannot be said that courts at Ghaziabad should have stayed the proceedings specially when the relief claimed in the two suits were different. The appellant instituted the suit for cancellation of the agreement to sell and power-of-attorney whereas plaintiff-respondent claimed the relief of specific performance. The validity of power-of-attorney has been decided in the present suit after a hot contest by the appellant as well. Evidence was led by both the parties. In the circumstances, I come to a conclusion that the first substantial question of law on which this second appeal was admitted, is not worth consideration. The two judgments on this question cannot be set aside.
7. The next question is, whether the power-of-attorney could have been acted upon in the absence of production of original or in the absence of proper procedure being adopted for accepting secondary evidence. The substantial question of law Nos. 2 and 3 are interlinked as such both are being decided simultaneously. On the basis of factual aspects pleaded by the respective parties Shafiuddin has executed a registered power-of-attorney on 22.6.1983 in favour of Sri Mughisuddin in respect of a number of property situated in Delhi, Ghaziabad, Mawana and district Meerut (Paper No. 63C). The disputed property regarding which the power-of-attorney in question was situated in district Ghaziabad (previously district Meerut). The documents filed by the defendants demonstrate that it authorized Mughisuddin to sale, exchange, surrender, lease and dispose of the whole or in part of the property. The transactions effected by Sri Shafiuddin in respect of other districts on the basis of power-of-attorney was duly acted upon by Sri Mughisuddin. On 9.9.1986. the power-of-attorney holder Mughisuddin entered into a registered agreement with the respondent for sale of the property in question situated at Ghaziabad for a consideration of Rs. 2,20,000. After execution of the registered agreement to sale, the plaintiff-respondent paid a sum of Rs. 1,90.000 and it was agreed that the sale deed was to be executed by 31.12.1987. After receiving 90% of the sale consideration and the appellant failed to perform his part of the contract. The respondent insisted (or execution of the sale deed which was declined by the appellant and also instituted Original Suit No. 1081 of 1986 in the Court of Civil Judge, Meerut for cancelling the registered agreement to sale. The defendant-appellant refused to execute the sale deed In favour of the plaintiff-respondent inspite of the fact that the willingness was expressed to pay balance amount. The intention of the appellant was evident, the plaintiff-respondent instituted Suit No. 172 of 1988, Jagdish Singh and Ors. v. Shafiuddin and Ors. The appellant filed his written statement and contested the suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. Sri Mughisuddin brought on record a photocopy of the power-of-attorney dated 22.6.1983 alongwith counter-affidavit was filed and copy was also served to the plaintiff-respondent which is on record. After receipt of the photocopy of the power-of-attorney, an application was filed at the instance of the plaintiff-respondent with a request to bring the original power-of-attorney on record. This application was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 25.5.1995 but the same was not brought on record. A notice was also sent to Mughisuddin to appear in the Court but for reasons best known, he chose not to appear and also did not file original power-of-attorney executed by Shafiuddin in his favour. It is also to be noticed that there is an admission in paragraph 18 of the written statement that Sri Shafiuddin had executed a power-of-attorney and that registered agreement to sale was also entered into in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. Both the courts below have examined the question in detail. An opinion of the handwriting expert namely B.N. Srivastava has been obtained. The expert evidence adduced by the appellant namely Sri Balraj Tomar, though stated in his examination-in-chief that the signature of Shafiuddin appears to be forged but he did not prove it nor did he furnish any document to enlighten the Court that he had taken any formal training in this line nor has been issued any certificate to act as a handwriting expert by any recognized institution, on the contrary he admitted that he did not examine the documents and the signature himself but he submitted his report on the basis of observations made by his assistant, therefore, the courts below rightly declined to place any reliance on his opinion. The handwriting expert Sri B. N. Srivastava has taken training from Delhi University and he has given cogent reasoning regarding authenticity of the power-of-attorney. The trial court while deciding issue No. 1 has categorically held and come to a conclusion that the power-of-attorney is a genuine document. In the circumstances, these findings are concluded by findings of fact and cannot be interfered in exercise of powers under Section 100, C.P.C.
8. Sri M.A. Qadeer has tried to argue that the Courts have wrongly placed reliance on a photocopy in absence of original document. He has placed reliance on a number of decisions. In the case of Babu Ram v. Jhamman (B.R.) 1994 ALR 66. the Court had declined to place reliance on the photocopies of the documents holding it to be inadmissible in evidence. The next decision relied upon by Sri Qadeer is Ishtiaq Hussain v. Ashfaq Hussain 1986 (1) ARC 455. Another decision relied upon is of Orissa High Court in the case of Bhaskar Sahu v. Anama Swara and Ors. . where it was held that when a certified copy is allowed to be produced under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, there is no presumption regarding genuineness of its execution. Another decision of the Apex Court is Shital Das v. Sant Ram and Ors. . This decision is in respect of presumption regarding a document as provided under Section 90 of the Evidence Act.
9. Sri R.D. Khare appearing for the plaintiff-respondents had tried to support the judgments. He has cited the decision of the Apex Court in support of his contention on the question of admissibility of the disputed document as a secondary evidence. In the case of Marwari Kumhar v. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri and Anr. 2000 (2) CLR 1569 : 2000 (4) AWC 2. 43 (SC) (NOC). In paragraph 9 of the said decision instances are enumerated where a secondary evidence may be admitted. Another decision is of this Court in the case of Saudul Azeez v. District Judge Corakhpur and Ors. 2000 (1) CLR 124 : 1999 (4) AWC 3213.
10. On perusal of the judgments of the court below, it is evident that the Court had directed the appellant to produce the original power-of-attorney. The Court had fixed a specific date that was on 24.5.1995 on an Application No. 120Ga which was allowed. Another direction for producing the original power-of-attorney by 12.7.1995 is also on record. It was further directed by the Court that in the event, original power-of-attorney is not with the defendant-appellant then an affidavit should be filed to the said effect. In spite of the specific direction, the power-of-attorney was not produced. e had admitted in his written statement that he had executed a general power-of-attorney and also admitted that besides the said general power-of-attorney, he has also executed a number of other power-of-attorneys in favour of the defendant No. 2. In the circumstances, a finding was arrived at that the original document has been withheld by the defendant-appellant and. therefore, secondary evidence was accepted by the Court which was duly proved by the handwriting expert and definite finding of fact has been arrived at. These questions cannot be gone Into in this second appeal. The Apex Court has consistently ruled that it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last court of fact being the first appellate court. In the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and Ors. . the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the concurrent finding of fact cannot be interfered in exercise of powers under Section 100, C.P.C. The litigant should not be allowed to raise questions of fact in a second appeal. Similar view was expressed in the case of Hamida v. Mohd. Khalil . In another case Santosh Hajari v. Purshottam Tiwari AIR 2001 SC 965 : 2001 (1) AWC 824 (SC), similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in respect of exercise of jurisdiction in a second appeal, specially where the Judgment is a concurrent one and concluded by finding of fact. In the case of Govinda Raju v. Mariamman . the scope of Section 100 has been elucidated. It was held that the substantial question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent and should be such that answer to it would have a material bearing to the rights of the parties before the Court. Only if High Court comes to a conclusion that the findings recorded were perverse, i.e., misreading of evidence or based on no evidence, the Court gets jurisdiction for re-appreciating evidence. In the case of M. Janardhan Rao v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax , similar view has been expressed in an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The scope thus is very much restricted and I do not think that there is any substantial question of law which requires re-appraisal of evidence. The impugned Judgments are well reasoned and concluded by findings of fact. No re-appreciation of evidence can be done in exercise of powers under Section 100, C.P.C. This is not a case where it can be said that the Courts have ignored the material relevant evidence or considered such evidence which led to a conclusion contrary to law. The findings arrived at by the courts below are well sustained on record and cannot be interfered by this Court. The plea of fraud set up by the appellant was to be established by means of cogent evidence by the defendant-appellant who failed to do so and, therefore, I conclude that no substantial question of law arises worth consideration. The second appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.