JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—I have heard Sri M.C. Singh, learned Counsel on behalf of the defendant appellant and Sri Anubhav Trivedi and Sri Vishal Khandelwal holding brief of Sri Prakash Chandra for the plaintiff-respondents. 2. The appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of the agreement which has been decreed by the Court of first instance and the decree so passed has been upheld in appeal by the lower appellate Court. Thus, the decree of specific performance so passed by the Courts below has been assailed in the present appeal by the defendant-appellant. 3. It is said that the defendant appellant Ikram had executed a registered agreement to sale dated 14.6.1990 to transfer his land being plot No. 205 area 2 Bigha, 2 Biswa, 12 biswansi situate in village Govindpur of district Bulandshahr for a total sale consideration of Rs. 75,000/- out of which he had received a sum of Rs. 70,000/- in advance and balance Rs. 5,000/- was payable at the time of sale. When the sale deed was not executed despite notice and presence of the plaintiff respondent before the Sub-Registrar as agreed upon, the plaintiff respondent instituted the present suit on 23.11.1993 stating that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and is still ready to get the sale deed executed. The suit was contested by the defendant appellant by filing written statement alleging that no such agreement dated 14.6.1990 was executed by him. Such agreement, if any, is a fraudulent document. The defendant appellant in the year 1989 wanted to purchase a buffalow, therefore, he borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from the father of the plaintiff-respondent Mohd. Safi and to protect the said land transaction registered agreement to sell this very land was executed by him on 28.6.1989. Later on, when he had repaid the loan amount with interest in full, in order to get the aforesaid agreement to sell cancelled he had attended the office of the Sub-Registrar and it appears that in the garb of getting the cancellation deed executed, the agreement in dispute dated 14.6.1990 was fraudulently got executed. The agreement to sell was in violation of Section 168-A of the UPZA & LR Act and therefore no decree on its basis was liable to be passed. 4. The agreement to sell was in violation of Section 168-A of the UPZA & LR Act and therefore no decree on its basis was liable to be passed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed : ¼1½ D;k Áfroknh us oknhx.k ds gd esa vius Hkwfe la[;k 205 jdcbZ 2&2&12 fLFkr xzke uaxyk xksfoUniqj ijxuk fldUnzkckn ftyk cqyUnkgj ds vady 75000 :i;s esa fnukad 14-6-1990 dks foØ; djus gsrq jftLVªh bdjkjukek rgjhj o rdehy djds vadu 70]000@& :i;s c;kuk ÁkIr fd;k\ ¼2½ D;k oknhx.k fookfnr bdjkjukesa ds vuqlkj cSukek djkus dks lnSo rS;kj] bPNqd o rRij jgs gS\ ¼3½ D;k fookfnr bdjkjukek iwoZfyf[kr bdjkjukesa dks dSfUly djkus dh ckcr /kks[kk nsdj fy[kk;k gS] tSlk fd Áfrokn i= esa dgk x;k gS\ ¼4½ D;k oknhx.k dk okn lkgwdkjh vf/kfu;e ds Áko/kkuksa ls ckf/kr gS tSlk fd Áfrokn i= dh /kkjk 21 esa dgk x;k gS\ ¼5½ D;k bdjkjukek /kkjk 168&, tehankjh mUewyu vf/kfu;e ds Áko/kku ls ckf/kr gS\ ¼6½ D;k nkokoknh _.k jkgr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3] 4] 5 ls ckf/kr gS\ ¼7½ oknhx.k fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 5. A perusal of the aforesaid issues indicates that issues No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are the relevant issues concerning the merits of the dispute. On the aforesaid issues the parties were given full opportunity to adduce evidence and both the parties adduced the necessary evidence. The oral evidence of the parties was also recorded. Thereafter, it appears on the date fixed, the defendant-appellant failed to appear either personally or through the Counsel and therefore the Court proceeded and decided the suit on merits vide judgment and order dated 5.7.2000. The suit was decreed. The defendant appellant preferred appeal which was dismissed after examining findings on each and every issue recorded by the Court of first instance. 6. Now in this appeal three points have been raised by the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant. 7. First, the Courts below erred in proceeding under Order XVII Rule 2 and in deciding the suit on merits without considering the adjournment application and the evidence of the defendant-appellant. 8. Secondly, the Courts below have failed to exercise the discretion vested in it under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act in decreeing the suit. 9. 7. First, the Courts below erred in proceeding under Order XVII Rule 2 and in deciding the suit on merits without considering the adjournment application and the evidence of the defendant-appellant. 8. Secondly, the Courts below have failed to exercise the discretion vested in it under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act in decreeing the suit. 9. Thirdly, no decree of specific performance could have been passed as the sale in pursuance of the agreement to sell would amount to transfer of a fragmentation which is barred by Section 168-A of the U.P. ZA & LR Act. 10. In reply to the above submissions it has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff respondents that the judgments and orders of the Courts below are based upon the evidence adduced and no material evidence of the defendant appellant has been left out from being considered. Therefore, there is no legal point worth substance which can be said to be involved in the present appeal. 11. The record indicates that the defendant appellant has duly appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement and by adducing necessary evidence. The evidence of the parties was fully recorded and it was not the case of the defendant-appellant that the evidence in full or even substantial portion of it was not recorded. Undoubtedly, the defendant-appellant failed to appear on the date fixed and no arguments on his behalf were advanced. Therefore, the trial Court in exercise of powers under Order XVII Rule 2, CPC after hearing the Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent pronounced the judgment and order on merits. 12. The submission of the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant that the trial Court could not have proceeded to decide the suit on merits without considering and deciding his application for adjournment is wholly misconceived and is against the record. The order sheet of the trial Court reveals that for the last two years before the judgment, order and decree dated 5.7.2000, the defendant appellant on every date had been seeking adjournments. On the penultimate date initially, he was not present. Subsequently, he appeared and moved an application for adjournment. Application was rejected and looking to his conduct and that the suit was pending since April 1993, the Court proceeded to decide the suit on merits. The order rejecting the adjournment applications of the defendant-appellant is reproduced below : “Case called out several times. Subsequently, he appeared and moved an application for adjournment. Application was rejected and looking to his conduct and that the suit was pending since April 1993, the Court proceeded to decide the suit on merits. The order rejecting the adjournment applications of the defendant-appellant is reproduced below : “Case called out several times. Plaintiff is present. The defendant is absent. Defendant is deliberately delaying the case. Subsequently, the defendant appeared and moved application for adjournment. Opposed by plaintiff. The defendant has failed to do any act for the further progress of the suit. More than 10 dates for adjournment taken by the defendant but he was never prepared to deliver the argument in this case. Cost of adjournment also not paid by the defendant. Plaintiff has advanced his argument but defendant has deliberately delaying the case. In such circumstances adjournment application by the defendant is dismissed. It is an old case pending since April 1993. Plaintiffs suit is dismissed with cost provided under Order XVII Rule 3, CPC.” 13. Code of Civil Procedure in Order XVII Rule 2 provides that the Courts may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes prescribed under Order IX or make such other order as it thinks fit where on the date of hearing the parties or any of them fail to appear in case substantial evidence of such party has already been recorded. The Court may in such circumstances in its discretion, proceed with the case as if such parties were present. In the instant case, therefore, the trial Court committed no error in proceeding to decide the suit on merits after rejecting the adjournment of the defendant-appellant and by treating him to be present. 14. As far as the evidence in the form of statements of defence witnesses is concerned, the trial Court has referred to the same and the appellate Court has specifically dealt with it while examining the findings on each issue. Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings returned by the Courts below are perverse. Even otherwise, the findings of fact howsoever erroneous are not liable to be disturbed in second appeal vide AIR 1959 SC 57 , Deity Pattabhiramaswamy v. S. Hanymayya and others and AIR 2006 SC 1975 , Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki and others. Therefore, the first submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant has no force and is rejected. 15. Even otherwise, the findings of fact howsoever erroneous are not liable to be disturbed in second appeal vide AIR 1959 SC 57 , Deity Pattabhiramaswamy v. S. Hanymayya and others and AIR 2006 SC 1975 , Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki and others. Therefore, the first submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant has no force and is rejected. 15. As regard the second submission, a perusal of the written statement reveals that no pleadings in that regard were made by the defendant appellant. It has nowhere been pleaded in the written statement that in the event the sale deed is executed in pursuance to the agreement, the defendant appellant would suffer hardship and therefore even if there is such an agreement the Court is not obliged to direct specific performance of the agreement. In the absence of any such pleadings particularly when even no issue has been framed on the above point, the defendant appellant can-not be permitted to raise the said aspect of the matter for the first time in second appeal. It is a recognized principle of law that the trial Court is not obliged to go beyond the issues and to decide the matter on a point which has neither been pleaded nor raised and on which no issue has been framed. It is not the case of the defendant-appellant that the issues have not been properly framed. This is also the view taken by another bench of this Court in 2007 AIR SCW 525, Abdul Hai v. Smt. Shanti Devi relying upon two decisions of the apex Court in the case of Akbar Ali v. Vinod Khanna and others, 2004 AIR SCW 4387 and A. Meria Angelena (d) and others v. A.G. Bilkis Bee, 2002 ALR 219 (SC), wherein in absence of pleadings and the issue the point of non-exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, was declined. Apart from this, appellate Court while upholding the decree of specific performance has recorded a finding that the defendant appellant has already transferred all his land and that he is in no mood even to retain this piece of land. Accordingly, there is no equity in his favour so as to refuse the decree of specific performance to the plaintiff respondents. In view of the above this point also has no legal substance and fails. 16. Accordingly, there is no equity in his favour so as to refuse the decree of specific performance to the plaintiff respondents. In view of the above this point also has no legal substance and fails. 16. The third aspect of the matter relates to agreement being barred by Section 168-A of U.P. ZA & LR Act. The lower appellate Court in this connection has recorded a finding that the defendant appellant who was owner of a huge piece of land had already transferred all other lands and the land in dispute which is the subject matter of the agreement is the only land in his ownership and possession. Thus, where the sale is to be made in respect of entire land which in itself is a fragment it would not be hit by Article 168-A of the Act. 17. Besides the above, I find that the Courts below especially the appellate Court, after complete analysis of the evidence on record and on full discussion has recorded that the agreement to sale stand duly proved. It has not been got executed by playing fraud and is not a fraudulent document as the defendant respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish any such fraudulent act. A finding with regard to plaintiff respondent being always and still ready and willing to get the sale deed executed was also recorded. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no error or illegality in the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below. Every aspect of the matter stands concluded by the findings of fact. None of the points argued raises any substantial question of law. Therefore, in the absence of any substantial question of law, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. ————