JUDGMENT : - Sanjay Karol, Judge This is the defendant’s appeal, filed under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below. 2. Suit filed by plaintiff-respondent Smt. Nirmala Devi, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, stands decreed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul-Spiti at Kullu, H.P., vide judgment and decree dated 28.2.2013, passed in Civil Suit No.206/2009, titled as Smt. Nirmala Devi v. Mehar Chand, in the following terms: “In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. A decree fro (sic: for) Rs.2,01,000/- is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till total realization of the decretal amount. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. File after completion be consigned to record room.” 3. Findings of fact, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, stand affirmed by learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, vide judgment and decree dated 3.12.2013, passed in Civil Appea No.17/2013, titled as Mehar Chand v. Smt. Nirmala Devi. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the defendant executed agreement dated 7-7-2007 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,81,000/-? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs under Section 35-B CPC? OPD 7. Whether agreement dated 7-7-2007 is forged and fictitious? OPD 8. Relief. 5. The Courts below concurrently held the parties to have executed a valid agreement dated 7.7.2007 (Ex. PW-2/A) and as such plaintiff entitled to recover the agreed amount in terms thereof. 6. Appellant-defendant Shri Mehar Chand, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, has assailed the findings on the ground of non-execution of agreement dated 7.7.2007 (Ex. PW-2/A). It is argued that the agreement is ante-dated and is thus void. But then there is nothing on record to substantiate such plea of fraud, illegality or voidness. 7. 6. Appellant-defendant Shri Mehar Chand, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, has assailed the findings on the ground of non-execution of agreement dated 7.7.2007 (Ex. PW-2/A). It is argued that the agreement is ante-dated and is thus void. But then there is nothing on record to substantiate such plea of fraud, illegality or voidness. 7. Defendant admits his signatures on the agreement. Plaintiff has proved executing thereof, in accordance with law. Witnesses to the agreement have also deposed in favour of the plaintiff. The agreement was with regard to a vehicle. 8. As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and/or erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.