JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Plaintiff in T.S No. 285/119-92/88 of the Court of the Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri has filed the Second Appeal assailing confirming Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court. 2. The suit was filed seeking a decree of specific performance of contract in terms of an agreement for sale of the suit property, vide Ext.1/c, executed by late Nandalal Sinha. The plaint averments reveal that said Nandalal on receipt of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as advance had executed the agreement on 26.6.1986 and allowed the Plaintiff-Appellant to possess the land in question. It was further agreed that Nandalal would execute the sale deed within three years on receipt of the balance consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. It was averred that as Nandalal before execution of sale deed and thereafter his widow Gita Sinha having adopted dilly-dally tactics, the Plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. It was further alleged that after filing of the suit said Gita had executed a sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 2. 3. After receiving notice Defendants filed a written statement contending inter alia that the agreement for sale Ext.1/c was a forged document, Nandalal was ill and was residing at Calcutta and had not executed any document. It was further alleged that the document was created for the purpose of the suit. Several other averments were also made in the written statement. 4. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed six issues for its decision. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court drew adverse inference against the Plaintiff since he had failed to take appropriate steps for comparison of the disputed signatures of deceased Nandalal with his admitted signatures by a handwriting expert. It came to the conclusion that the agreement for sale Ext.1/c was a forged document. It further held that possession was never handed over to the Plaintiff and there was no contract between the two. The suit was dismissed with costs. Being aggrieved, the Plaintiff filed T.A No. 53 of 1995 in the Court of Learned District Judge, Puri. The Appellate Court after threadbare discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, confirmed the findings arrived at by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The said confirming Judgment is assailed in this Second Appeal. 5. Being aggrieved, the Plaintiff filed T.A No. 53 of 1995 in the Court of Learned District Judge, Puri. The Appellate Court after threadbare discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, confirmed the findings arrived at by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The said confirming Judgment is assailed in this Second Appeal. 5. While admitting the appeal this Court observed that the substantial questions of law as per ground Nos. A to F contained in the Memorandum of Appeal were to be considered at the time of hearing. In course of hearing, however, it appears that the property in question belongs to a public religious endowment. Mr. Routary, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that as the Commissioner of Endowments was not impleaded as a party to the suit and the mandatory provision of Section 69 of the O H R E Act for service of notice upon the Commissioner having not been complied with, the Trial Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in entertaining the appeal and disposing of the same and on the said ground alone the appeal should be allowed and the matter should be remitted back to the Court below. 6. To appreciate such arguments it would be prudent to refer to Section 69 of the O.H.R.E Act. The said Section reads as follows: No doubt in consonance with said Section the Court has a duty to issue notice to the Commissioner of Endowments whenever the trustee of any religious institution is sued in any Court in respect of any properly belonging to or endowed to the religious institution. 7. In the case at hand admittedly the Appellant was the Plaintiff. Thus he had the onerous duty to bring to the notice of the Trial Court and take steps for issuance of notice to the Commissioner. He had failed to do so. The suit was one for specific performance of contract said to have been entered into between the Appellant and deceased Nandalal. Both the Courts below have found the said agreement to be a forged and a created document. The same being a concurrent finding of fact, and as this Court finds no infirmity in such findings, declines to interfere with the same. Both the Courts below have found the said agreement to be a forged and a created document. The same being a concurrent finding of fact, and as this Court finds no infirmity in such findings, declines to interfere with the same. That apart, for the laches of the Appellant in moving the Court and no notice having been served on the Commissioner, on that ground alone the confirming Judgment and decree cannot be set aside nor can the matter be remitted back to the Court below, thereby giving scope to the Appellant to fill up his lacuna. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the confirming Judgment and decree and dismisses the Second Appeal. 9. Parties to bear their own costs. Final Result : Dismissed