ORDER 1. The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 18.4.2013, passed by the IXth Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in RCA No. 253-A/2011 whereby the judgment and decree, dated 30.9.2011, passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal, has been affirmed and confirmed and the suit filed by the appellants for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the dispute between the parties relates to land bearing Khasra No.82, area 1.068 hectares of village Badwai, Tahsil Hujur. Nagar Nigam Ward No. 66, Bhopal. The dispute between the parties related to the validity of the sale deed dated 21.8.1967 which was executed in favour of the respondent. The appellant assailing the validity of the sale deed, prayed for declaring it null and void and for further declaration that the appellant be declared owner of the land. 3. The Courts below have recorded a finding to the effect that the sale deed dated 21.8.1967 was valid and have accordingly dismissed the suit filed by the appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the absence of proper recitations in the sale deed the Court below has erred in law in confirming the sale deed and recording a finding to the effect that the same is valid. Learned counsel has also assailed the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the trial Court, by order dated 21.9.2011, re-framed the issues in the suit without giving any opportunity of adducing evidence on the newly framed issues and, therefore, the Courts below have committed perversity in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and after perusing the record, it is observed that the trial Court in its order dated 21.9.2011 has clearly recorded a finding to the effect that the issues were re-framed with the express consent of the parties and also recorded in the order sheet that the appellants have agreed that they do not wish to adduce any further evidence. 6. 6. The trial Court, after recording the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to decide the suit on the newly framed issues though it is asserted that the appellants did not give any such consent, however, from a perusal of the order sheet it is clear that the learned counsel who appeared for the appellants had signed the order sheet and has not challenged the same. In the circumstances, the first appellate Court, considering the aforesaid issue, raised by the appellants, has rejected it by giving extensive reasons in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of its judgment. 7. Having perused the record including the order sheet dated 21.9.2011 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or manifest irregularity in the procedure followed by the trial Court, specifically, in view of the fact that the order was passed in presence of the appellants who had also signed the order sheet. 8. That apart, it is also clear that the Court below has also analyzed the validity of the sale deed on the basis of the reports submitted by the expert who has examined the thumb impression of the executor and after considering the rival reports submitted by the parties has recorded a finding to the effect that the sale-deed dated 21.8.1967 was valid and conferred title on the respondent. The aforesaid finding is a pure finding of fact and does not give any rise to a substantial question of law for adjudication. 9. In the circumstances, as no substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the present appeal, I find no reason to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants being meritless is accordingly dismissed.