JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral):- There is an application for placing on record additionalevidence. 2. It is stated that in another case in which both the parties weredefendants, a different version of the agreement to sell had been placedon record. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has argued thatneither there is any reason shown why this document was not placedbefore the Courts below nor is it mentioned who has placed thisdocument on record and even the documents were placed by someunknown persons on that file is itself a photocopy and therefore nosanctity can be attached to it and was never exhibited in that suit by theplaintiff. 3. I find myself in agreement with the learned counsel for therespondent No.1 and decline the application under Order 41 Rule 27. Main case 4. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments ofthe Courts below decreeing a suit for specific performance filed by therespondents. 5. The case of the respondent No.1 was that he had entered intoan agreement dated 11.09.2007 to purchase the suit property and hadmade a payment of Rs. 2,25,000/- at the time of the execution of theagreement to sell and was liable to pay another further amount ofRs. 1,95,000/- as balance consideration. The case of the appellant onthe other hand was of a blanket denial and it was averred that there wasearlier litigation pending between the appellant and her husband and inthat case brother of the respondent No.1 was engaged as a counsel bythe husband of the appellant. During that litigation a compromise wasarrived at between the appellant and her husband and it was at that timethat the brother of the respondent No.1 had obtained various signedpapers from the appellant and it was those signed papers which werebeing misused by the respondent No.1. 6. Both the Courts below held that the respondent No.1 had dulybeen able to prove the execution of the agreement to sell andconsequently decreed the suit. The only argument raised by the counselfor the appellant is that there were material contradictions in thetestimony of the witnesses produced by the respondent No.1. As perhim, one witness stated that the sale consideration consisted of notes ofthe denomination of Rs.100/- and Rs. 500/-. Another stated that theconsideration was paid in notes of Rs.100/- and Rs.50/- while a thirdstated that the consideration was paid only in notes of Rs.100/-. As perhim, one witness stated that the sale consideration consisted of notes ofthe denomination of Rs.100/- and Rs. 500/-. Another stated that theconsideration was paid in notes of Rs.100/- and Rs.50/- while a thirdstated that the consideration was paid only in notes of Rs.100/-. As perone witness, the money was paid at the seat of counsel while as per theother witness, the money was paid at the seat of the typist. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has pointed out thatthese minor anomalies cannot be taken to be contradictions. He haspointed out that the brother of the respondent No.1 appeared as awitness as PW5 and the appellant never even put him a question that hehad obtained any blank singed papers. Even the husband of theappellant was not examined as a witness to testify that any documentsmay have been obtained by his counsel from the appellant. Learnedcounsel has further argued that in that case admittedly the appellant wasrepresented by a counsel and therefore, it was very unlikely that shewould have signed blank papers and given it to the counsel of theopposite party. 8. In the totality of circumstances, I have not been persuaded thatthe judgment and decree of the Courts below are illegal. 9. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. 10. Since the main case has been decided, the pending C.M, ifany, also stand disposed of.