JUDGMENT : Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J. 1. By this first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in brevity 'Code'), the appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 18-11-2002 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Raipur, CG in Civil Suit No. 81-B/2002 whereby and whereunder learned Court below has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff (appellant herein) for realization of balance sale proceeds of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Learned lower court also ordered that as the plaintiff/appellant failed to prove its claim hence his claim is dismissed with costs. Brief facts of the civil suit filed before learned court below are as follows:- On 16-2-2000, the appellant/plaintiff sold a shop measuring 6 X 17 = 102 sq. ft. which is a part of municipal house No. 17/385 situated at Station Road, Raipur to defendants/respondents and gave possession for which for balance sale proceeds of Rs. 1,00,000/-, respondent No. 1 gave a cheque bearing No. 31590 dated 16-2-2000 for a sum of Rs. 1 lac to the plaintiff. It was mutually agreed between the parties that registration of the sale deed will be executed after payment of remaining sale proceed Rs. 1 lac by the defendants/respondents. Said cheque was dishonoured on 3-3-2001 Appellant/plaintiff immediately informed respondents/defendants regarding dishonour of the cheque. The appellant/plaintiff demanded many times the remaining sale proceeds of Rs. 1 lac, but the defendants/respondents merely gave assurances and not the money. On 15-1-2001, defendants No. 2 Sunil Jain gave a cheque No. 56222 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the plaintiff/appellant, but the said cheque was also dishonoured by the bank which was orally informed to the respondents immediately. As the defendants/respondents were not paying remaining sale proceeds of Rs. 1 lac, notices dated 29-1-2000 and 28-12-2001 were given to the respondents. When they did not pay the amount, the plaintiff appellant filed the a civil suit before the Court below for realization of remaining sale proceeds of Rs. 1 lac, interest at the rate of 12% per year from the date of presentation of the suit till payment and costs of the suit. 2. The defendants/respondents remained ex parte before the trial Court. 3. To prove his case, the appellant/plaintiff examined himself as his witness and supported his case. 4. 1 lac, interest at the rate of 12% per year from the date of presentation of the suit till payment and costs of the suit. 2. The defendants/respondents remained ex parte before the trial Court. 3. To prove his case, the appellant/plaintiff examined himself as his witness and supported his case. 4. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties including recording of evidence as produced by the plaintiff/appellant, learned court below has dismissed the suit on the ground that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff/appellant that for which reason said cheque was given is not proved; as per plaintiff/appellant, he sold rubble for a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- to the defendants against which he received a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- was due for which respondent/defendant No. 1 Kiran Devi gave him the cheque, but the plaintiff did not make it clear that from where this large quantity of rubble was present valuing Rs. 3.25 lac; as per plaint allegation, the plaintiff sold a constructed shop which is a part of house No. 17/385 situated at Station Road, Raipur to the defendant, for which Rs. 1 lac was remaining, also in the notice Ex. P-2, these facts find place but in the evidence, plaintiff does not depose that he sold the constructed house and for which remaining sale proceeds were due; also on the ground that the plaintiff failed to produce any document regarding existence of shop of his ownership; also not adduced any document regarding sale deed or agreement as the plaintiff did not support the contention of his pleading given in the suit. The trial Court further observed that as per averment in the plaint, after realization of total sale proceeds, registry was to be executed but in the civil suit, no specific relief for specific performance of contract was sought. Hence, the plaintiff failed to prove its case and thereby the learned court below dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff. 5. Against the said dismissal, appellant filed this memorandum of appeal. He supported all the fact and pleadings given in the plaint filed by him before the trial Court and challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court on the ground that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that there must have been balance of payment of Rs. 5. Against the said dismissal, appellant filed this memorandum of appeal. He supported all the fact and pleadings given in the plaint filed by him before the trial Court and challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court on the ground that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that there must have been balance of payment of Rs. 1 lac in favour of the appellant, otherwise the defendants/respondents would not have issued cheques. He had also taken a ground that the trial Court erred in considering irrelevant facts like title of appellant over the shop and agreement to sell entered into between the parties. He has further taken a ground that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that the appellant has preferred the suit for recovery of Rs. 1 lac balance payment and interest thereon and not for specific performance of contract. By filing the memo of appeal, the appellant prayed to this Court to set aside the judgment and decree impugned and allow the reliefs sought in the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff. 6. Even in this Court, the respondents, though served, have not contested this first appeal by appearing either themselves or through counsel. 7. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the plaintiff, I have perused the evidence adduced by the plaintiff/appellant before the trial Court. Upon perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence, following facts and circumstances emerge: 8. The plaintiff/appellant failed to adduce documentary evidence that House No. 17/385 is situated at Station Road, Raipur and a shop of 6 x 17 = 102 sq.ft. was as a part thereof. Though the plaintiff has argued that this was not the relevant issue, but in the considered opinion of this Court, this fact is a relevant fact that the appellant was the owner of the property which was sold by him or not. The plaintiff/appellant also failed to file certified or second copy of the registered sale deed which is again a very important document to ascertain as to which property was sold on what terms and conditions. The plaintiff/appellant also failed to file certified or second copy of the registered sale deed which is again a very important document to ascertain as to which property was sold on what terms and conditions. Non-filing of the registered sale deed and non-adducing any appropriate reason go to show that existence of any registered sale deed is not proved beyond doubt for which oral evidence may not be admitted because the facts which may be admitted by the written documents and if they are available, the same have to be presented to prove the facts. It is also apparent that for dishonour of those two cheques, no proceedings were initiated under the Negotiable Instruments Act by the plaintiff/appellant against the respondents/defendants. No reason is shown as to why he has chosen not to proceed for that. The reason shown that he had been given many assurances is not a good and acceptable reason. It is also a point to note that if Rs. 1 lac only was balance and for which a cheque dated 16-2-2000 was already given to plaintiff which was, as per pleadings, dishonoured after one year and 17 days, i.e. on 3-3-2001, how and why the cheque was presented for encashment and dishonoured after a very long period and by which letter the said cheque was dishonoured is not adduced in the evidence by the plaintiff. Whenever a bank dishonours a cheque, it gives a reason in writing but absence of that letter from the bank makes suspicion. The date of presentation of the cheque Ex. P-1 for encashment is not given which makes the case of the plaintiff suspicious. One more thing to note is that as per pleading, the cheque of Rs. 25,000/- was dishonoured, but when it was presented for encashment, reason for said dishonour is also not proved by documents. No reason is assigned as to why the said cheque and the letter from the bank is not filed to prove these facts. 9. As per pleadings, the cheque dated 16-2-2000 was for Rs. 1 lac and it was dishonoured on 3-3-2001, meaning thereby till 3-3-2001, there was no specific information with the plaintiff that the said cheque is dishonoured. In that case, why another cheque of Rs. 25,000/- was given on 15-1-2001 before dishonour of earlier cheque is not explained by the plaintiff. As per pleadings, the cheque dated 16-2-2000 was for Rs. 1 lac and it was dishonoured on 3-3-2001, meaning thereby till 3-3-2001, there was no specific information with the plaintiff that the said cheque is dishonoured. In that case, why another cheque of Rs. 25,000/- was given on 15-1-2001 before dishonour of earlier cheque is not explained by the plaintiff. Also the date of dishonour for the second cheque is not mentioned in the pleading and evidence. Non-explanation of these facts creates suspicion in the pleadings and facts of the appellant. If we consider the notice Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-4, it goes to show that Ex. P-2 was given on 29-1-2000 before dishonour of the cheque for Rs. One lac, i.e. 3-3-2001 and in this notice, it is mentioned that the cheque dated 16-2-2002 was dishonoured. The contents given in Ex. P-2 and the pleadings are contradictory and it goes to show that the appellant has not come to the court with clean hands. In para 5 of the pleadings of the plaint, date of another notice Ex P-4 is given as 28-12-2001, but as per notice Ex. P-4, the date is given as 14-3-2001. If the appellant was vigilant enough to give the notice for second cheque of Rs. 25,000/- also, how and why he had not initiated any proceedings against the defendants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not explained. As per evidence, plaintiff deposed in para 1 that he sold the rubble to respondent No. 1 Kiran Devi. If he sold this rubble to respondent No. 1 Kiran Devi only, then why he made respondent No. 2 party before the lower court is unexplained. He may not be made a party only because he gave one cheque as son of I respondent No. 1. The contradictions between pleadings and oral evidence go to show that respondent No. 2 was not at all a necessary party though he may be a necessary party for any proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act but at least not in the present suit. Also the trial Court has rightly held that in the pleadings, plaintiff stated regarding sell of said shop but in the evidence he deposed regarding sale of rubble. No reason is given for this contradiction in rubble and shop. Also the trial Court has rightly held that in the pleadings, plaintiff stated regarding sell of said shop but in the evidence he deposed regarding sale of rubble. No reason is given for this contradiction in rubble and shop. If the plaintiff was title holder of the said shop and the said house and he by registered sale deed sold the said shop to respondent No. 1, non-presentation of said sale deed creates cloud over the valid title of the appellant. Non-production of original sale deed and other facts discussed above goes to show that the trial Court was right in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. In the considered view of this Court, the trial Court committed no illegality or infirmity while dismissing the appellant's/plaintiff's suit. This court also feels no scope for interference in the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court. 10. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.