JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the defendant (sic plaintiff) against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Sriganganagar dated 11..2003 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the contract. 2. Learned counsel assailed the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No. 6 holding the suit to be barred by time, and also assailed the findings on issues No. 3 and 5, wherein the learned trial Court had held that in the document Ex.5, the date "15.5.1986" has been interpolated to "15.5.1996". 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the learned trial Court has erred in arriving at the conclusion about interpolation in the date on Ex.5 and according to Ex.5, the dates stipulated for performance of the contract was extended upto 15.5.1996, the suit is within time and the learned trial Court has erred in dismissing the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and decree. 5. The precise point, therefore, requiring consideration is as to whether there is interpolation in Ex.5 in the date stipulated for performance of the contract. Inasmuch as, if the date stipulated is 15.5.1986 then it is not in dispute that the suit is barred by time, and if the date is 15.5.1996 then also it is not in dispute that the suit is within time as it is filed on 27.7.1995. 6. In order to appreciate this controversy, I have gone through the original of Ex.5 available on record at page C-9/1 and endorsement appearing on the reverse side of the first page of the document purports to be a memorandum to the effect that the requisite sanction for the sale has been received, therefore, the time for getting the document registered is extended up to (the question date i.e. 15.5.1986 or 15.5.1996). It further stipulates that other stipulation shall be as already stipulated. 7. This stipulation is in the hand writing and not type written. A bare naked eye view of this endorsement does make it clear that the figure of a 8 appearing in the figures of the year has been interpolated to appear to be the figure 9. It may be observed that the figures of the year are four characters, the second character is 9, and the third character has been interpolated from 8 to 9. It may be observed that the figures of the year are four characters, the second character is 9, and the third character has been interpolated from 8 to 9. The formation of the two characters i.e. second and third, is not only materially different, even the ink used to convert 8 into 9 is clearly different, likewise, the shape of the figure made to convert it into 9 is also materially 5 different from the figure used in the second character to look it to be 9. Thus, even on collective reading of the four characters of the year mentioned in the date itself does make it clear that the figure 8 has been interpolated to figure 8. In that view of the matter. I am satisfied that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on issue No. 3 and 5 does not require any interference. Obviously therefore, the finding on issue No. 6 also does not suffer from any error requiring interference in this appeal. 9. No other point was pressed. 10. In view of the above, I do not find any force in this appeal. the 15 same is, therefore, dismissed summarily. *******