Judgment :- Tarun Kumar Gupta, J This second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 24.11.2003 and 01.12.2003 respectively passed by learned Judge Second Fast Track Court, Hooghly in Title Appeal No.97 of 2002 reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2002 of Specific Performance Contract passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Hooghly (Sadar) in Title Suit No.53 of 1998. Appellant/plaintiff’s case, in short, is that on 30.04.1999 he sold the suit land to the respondent /defendant on receipt of consideration of Rs.10,000/- through a registered document. On the same date there was an agreement of reconveyance wherein defendant agreed to reconvey the suit property to the plaintiff if same consideration amount of Rs.10,000/- is paid to the defendant within eight years therefrom. Said agreement was, however, unregistered. After said sale plaintiff handed over the suit property to the defendant. The plaintiff on several occasions and lastly on 30.12.1997 and again on 12.2.1998 requested defendant to execute the sale deed on receipt of Rs.10,000/- and plaintiff was also ready with the money all the time but defendant did not execute the reconveyance deed as per terms of said agreement. Plaintiff sent a specific notice dated 23.04.1998 asking defendant to come to the ‘Serasta’ of Kanai Ghosh at Sadar on 08.05.1998 in between 10-11 A. M. along with Rs.10,000/- for execution of the reconveyance deed but defendant refused to accept said notice. Accordingly, plaintiff filed said suit for Specific Performance of Contract. Defendant contested said suit by filing written statement denying execution of any agreement of reconveyance on the date of execution of sale deed by the plaintiff. It was specific case of the defendant that at the time of execution of said sale deed by the plaintiff defendant’s signatures were obtained on some blank papers on the plea that those papers would be required for the purpose of taking copy etc. and that the defendant relied upon one of his relations i.e., Robin Bag who was present there and that those unwritten papers bearing signatures of defendant might have been converted into a valuable document namely alleged agreement of reconveyance. The defendant never executed any such deed of reconveyance. The defendant also denied other material allegations of the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties several issues were framed and learned Trial Court decreed the suit for Specific Performance Contract. The defendant never executed any such deed of reconveyance. The defendant also denied other material allegations of the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties several issues were framed and learned Trial Court decreed the suit for Specific Performance Contract. However, learned Trial Court expunged the evidence of Tarapada Pal (P.W.3) who proved the deed of reconveyance alleged to be executed by the defendant on the ground that he was not tendered for cross-examination by the defendant. Against said judgment and decree of Specific Performance Contract defendant preferred an appeal in the First Appellate Court wherein the appeal was allowed reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved with said judgment of Lower Appellate Court this second appeal has been filed. At the time of admission of the second appeal the Division Bench framed following three substantial questions of law. (a) Whether the learned Court of Appeal below committed substantial error of law in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Trial Judge on sole ground that evidence of P.W.3 having been expunged, the appellant could not get relief by totally overlooking the fact that even the defendant admitted putting his signature on disputed deed. (b) Whether the learned Court of Appeal below committed substantial error of law in not setting aside the order No.58 dated 20.02.2002 passed by the learned Trial Judge in exercise of power conferred under Section 105 of Code of Civil Procedure. (c) Whether the learned Court of Appeal below committed substantial error of law in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge by not taking into consideration the fact that the defendant in spite of knowledge that he had put his signature on a blank paper did not challenge the said deed by filing separate suit or by filing counter claim in the proceeding. Mr. Goutam Lahiri, learned Advocate for the appellant, has submitted that learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of Trial Court on three-fold ground. First, the alleged agreement of reconveyance executed by defendant was not proved as evidence of P.W.3 was expunged. Secondly, notice sent to defendant asking him to execute the sale deed in terms of deed of reconveyance was not served upon defendant. First, the alleged agreement of reconveyance executed by defendant was not proved as evidence of P.W.3 was expunged. Secondly, notice sent to defendant asking him to execute the sale deed in terms of deed of reconveyance was not served upon defendant. Thirdly, there was no averment in the plaint that plaintiff was all along and still is in readiness for performing the contract, in terms of Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix –A of Code of Civil Procedure. Learned advocate has, first of all, submitted that P.W.3 was not crossexamined by the defendant at his risk though he was examined by the plaintiff, and as such defendant cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own inaction. In this connection he has referred case laws reported in AIR 1961 Calcutta page 359 (A.E.G. Carapiet v. A. Y. Derderian) and AIR 1983 Calcutta page 337 (Traders Syndicate v.Union of India) to impress upon this Court that if there is no crossexamination of any witness on any point the Court has to presume that defendant has accepted plaintiff’s case on that point in entirety. Learned advocate for the respondent/defendant, on the other hand, has submitted that aforesaid case laws have no application in the present case as P.W.3 was not tendered for cross-examination by the plaintiff. He has further submitted that as the witness was not tendered for cross-examination his oral evidence has little value in the eye of law and amounts to non-est. It appears from Lower Court record that on 09.10.2001 P.W.3 was examined in-chief in part and plaintiff took adjournment on that date on account of sudden illness of P.W.3. It further appears that on next date i.e., on 28.11.2001 plaintiff filed a petition for adjournment on account of absence of his witness but the same was rejected by Trial Court and thereafter defendant was examined as D.W.1. As appellant /plaintiff himself has failed to produce the relevant witness i.e., P.W.3 for cross-examination by the adversary, the aforesaid case laws as referred by learned Advocate for the appellant / plaintiff has no application in this case. As appellant /plaintiff himself has failed to produce the relevant witness i.e., P.W.3 for cross-examination by the adversary, the aforesaid case laws as referred by learned Advocate for the appellant / plaintiff has no application in this case. Learned advocate for the appellant / plaintiff has further submitted that the notice demanding execution of sale deed in terms of the deed of reconveyance dated 30th April, 1990 was sent to defendant under registered post with A/D with correct address but returned with postal remark ‘not claimed’ and that it amounted to good service as it was sent bearing correct name and address. In this connection he has further submitted that in the same address a notice of the plaint of the Trial Court was sent and was received by the defendant and hence the defendant cannot be permitted to say that the address was not correct. Learned advocate for the defendant, on the other hand, has submitted that the address of the defendant was fully written on the sale deed of plaintiff wherein it was stated as Sung Nullikul (Station Bazar) Kalitala, Ronighat, Police Station Haripal, District. Hooghly. According to him the alleged notice was sent with the address village Nullikul, P.S. Haripal, Dist. Hooghly which is certainly not complete address. According to him, even in subsequent occasion postal peon can deliver a letter / notice with this address that does not mean that address was complete or that all postal peons would have been able to contact defendant for delivery of letter or a notice with said incomplete address. I find much force in the aforesaid submission of learned advocate of the defendant/ respondent. It may be that in some occasions letters / notices with incomplete address can be served upon a person. That does not mean all the time letters / notices sent with said incomplete address could be tendered to the person concerned. As such it cannot be said that notice was duly served upon defendant when it bears incomplete address. Learned advocate for the appellant /plaintiff has further submitted that readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff has to be averred in the plaint showing compliance of Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix –A of the Code of Civil Procedure in sum and substance and not necessarily in letter and form. Learned advocate for the appellant /plaintiff has further submitted that readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff has to be averred in the plaint showing compliance of Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix –A of the Code of Civil Procedure in sum and substance and not necessarily in letter and form. In this connection, he has referred case laws reported in (1997) 2 SCC page 200 (Sukhbir Singh and others v. Brij Pal Singh and others), AIR 1971 Supreme Court page 1238 (Ramesh Chandra Chandiok and another v. Chuni Lal Sabharwal) and AIR 1988 Kerala page 107 (Krishnan Kesavan and others v. Kochukunju Karunakaran). In the referred case laws it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as High Court of Kerala that readiness and willingness cannot be treated as a straight jacket formula and these have to be determined from the entirety of facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct of the party concerned. It was further held that plaintiff cannot be non-suited on technical ground for want of strict compliance of Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix –A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Advocate for the respondent/defendant has tried to distinguish the above referred case laws by submitting that there were separate sets of facts. I find little force in the aforesaid argument. The ratio of the above referred case laws are squarely applicable in the present case also. It came out from the plaint that plaintiff mentioned several specific dates for going to defendant’s place along with money for execution of the sale deed in terms of the agreement of reconveyance. As such it can be said that there was compliance of Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix-A of the Code of Civil Procedure in sum and substance and that on that score the judgment of learned Trial Court should not have been reversed. However, appellant/plaintiff has not only to plead in his pleadings that he was all the time ready and willing to perform his part of agreement, but has also to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence. In the case in hand as per plaint plaintiff on several occasions and lastly on 30.12.1997 and again on 12.02.1998 approached defendant with money of Rs.10,000/- for executing the deed of reconveyance by defendant. In the case in hand as per plaint plaintiff on several occasions and lastly on 30.12.1997 and again on 12.02.1998 approached defendant with money of Rs.10,000/- for executing the deed of reconveyance by defendant. Appellant / plaintiff while deposing as P.W.1 deposed that on 30.12.97 he had been to the defendant’s place with Rs.10,000/- for requesting defendant to execute the ‘Kobala’ in favour of the plaintiff as per terms of reconveyance but defendant took time. He again deposed that in 1998 he approached defendant with money for execution of said deed of reconveyance but without any result. These facts were specifically denied by the respondent defendant. Admittedly, there is no supporting witness on this point. In the absence of any such corroborative evidence it is hard to accept the evidence of appellant plaintiff on this point when it was vehemently opposed by the respondent/defendant. Again there is also no convincing evidence that before 1997 plaintiffs approached defendant for said reconveyance or that plaintiffs were all along and are still ready to perform their part of contract. There is no denial that respondent/defendant admitted putting his signature on some papers though according to him those were blank. As such, though P.W.3 who proved the agreement of reconveyance bearing signature of defendant, was not tendered for cross-examination but in view of admission of the defendant in his pleadings learned Lower Appellate Court should have held that said alleged deed of reconveyance had signatures thereupon, of the defendant. However, putting a signature on a document does not ipso facto show knowledge of the person about the contents of the document unless the other requirements of proving the document are established. It has already been found that P.W.3 who proved the deed of reconveyance was not tendered by the plaintiff for cross-examination from the side of defendant. As a result, the evidence of P.W.3 being remained untested by the touch stone of cross-examination, has little evidential value in the eye of law though it does not altogether stand expunged. Under these facts and circumstances non-exercise of powers under Section 105 of C. P. C. by Lower Appellate Court for setting aside Order No.58 dated 20.02.2002 of learned Trial Court had not much bearing in the ultimate outcome of the suit. Under these facts and circumstances non-exercise of powers under Section 105 of C. P. C. by Lower Appellate Court for setting aside Order No.58 dated 20.02.2002 of learned Trial Court had not much bearing in the ultimate outcome of the suit. Learned advocate for the respondent /defendant has submitted that before filing of this suit the defendant had no knowledge that the papers on which his signatures were obtained were converted into a valuable document namely alleged agreement of reconveyance and as such there was no scope of filing any suit earlier. He has further submitted that even without filing counter claim in the proceeding, defendant has every right to challenge the impugned document as a document fabricated later on after obtaining his signature while the document was blank. In view of the above discussions the ultimate order of Lower Appellate Court namely allowing of appeal and reversing judgment of Trial Court does not call for any interference. Accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed on contest and the impugned judgment and decree of Lower Appellate Court stand confirmed on other grounds as stated above. Send down L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment to the Lower Court expeditiously. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned counsels of the party or parties, if applied for. (Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.) S.A. No.501 of 2006 Later 30.11.2010 After passing of judgment it is submitted through the side of the respondent that Mr. Kajal Ray and Mr. Abhishek Banerjee, both learned advocates, assisted Mr. M. P. Gupta, advocate for the respondent. Let the submission be noted.