JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff's suit for rendition of a decree, for specific performance of contract, stood dismissed, by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by the plaintiff, the latter Court allowed his appeal besides obviously reversed the trial Court's judgment and decree. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that defendant Ajit Singh (now deceased) has entered into an agreement to sell the land measuring 0-4 marlas, comprising Khewat No.990, Khatauni No.1660, Khasra No.5058/4203/2674-2675 on 31.8.1992 for a consideration of Rs.20,000/-, out of which he has paid Rs.18,000/- to the defendant as earnest money and undertook to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,000/- at the time of the attestation of the sale deed before the Registrar. The defendant agreed to execute the sale deed within two months after the completion of the settlement proceedings. The defendant also agreed that in case he fails to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months after the completion of the settlement proceedings, then he will pay the amount of Rs.36,000/- to the plaintiff and in case the plaintiff fails to get the sale deed executed, the earnest money paid will stand forfeited. The plaintiff has come to know now that the settlement proceedings have been completed and the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance sale consideration amounting to Rs.2,000/- to the defendant and asked the defendant to perform his part of contract several times but he failed to do so. The plaintiff also served the defendant with a registered notice through counsel on 20.12.1993, requiring the defendant to perform his part of contract by executing the sale deed but he failed to get the sale deed executed. Therefore, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for specific performance of contract by way of execution of sale deed of the suit land and in the alternative a decree for recovery of Rs.36,000/-. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has averred that no such agreement was ever executed by the defendant and in case there is any such agreement, the same is the outcome of fraud and misrepresentation as no consideration was ever received by the defendant. The defendant is an illiterate person and residing at Kiratpur Sahib in Punjab. The defendant is an illiterate person and residing at Kiratpur Sahib in Punjab. The father of the parties is residing with the plaintiff and asked the defendant to sign few papers which were required to be given to the settlement authorities, as the settlement operation was going on and took the defendant to Tehsil Head Quarter, Una, and obtained the signature of the defendant on some papers and might have executed the alleged agreement on these papers. Therefore, no such agreement has been executed by the defendant and there is no question of its performance. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant(s), wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the defendant has executed an agreement to sell the land on 31.8.1992 for consideration, if so, its effect?OPP. 2. Whether the alleged agreement dated 31.8.1992 is out coming of misrepresentation and fraud, if so, its effect?OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?OPD. 4. Whether the suit property is not properly valued for jurisdiction of the Court?OPD. 5. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the latter Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now defendant No.1/appellant(s) herein, hence institute the instant Regular Second Appeal, before this Court, wherein they assail the findings recorded, in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 10.09.2007, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted, by the defendant(s)/appellant(s) against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the document Ex.P-4 is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and has not been duly proved to be executed between the parties? 2. Whether the judgment of the First Appellate Curt below is based on surmises and conjectures? 3. Whether the statement of PW-5, Sh. Whether the document Ex.P-4 is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and has not been duly proved to be executed between the parties? 2. Whether the judgment of the First Appellate Curt below is based on surmises and conjectures? 3. Whether the statement of PW-5, Sh. Chander Mohan Sharma, Advocate in support of the case of the plaintiff ought to have been relied upon by the First Appellate Court, especially when the said witness has appeared as an advocate in the same case for the plaintiff, in view of the bar as contained in the Evidence Act? 4. Whether the ld. First Appellate Court below was right in allowing the application for additional evidence filed on behalf of the plaintiff especially when no grounds were made out for the same. Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 4: 8. For adjudging, the respective validities, of, the judgments and decrees, respectively pronounced, by the learned trial Court, and, by the learned First Appellate Court, (i) it is imperative to bear in mind, the written statement instituted, during, his life time by deceased defendant Ajit Singh, (ii) therein, he omits, to, specifically rear, any contention of his signatures, not, existing on Ex.P-4, contrarily, he rears therein, a, contention, of, agreement, if any, as executed by him, with, the plaintiff, rather being an out come of fraud and misrepresentation, arising, from his being beguiled to sign blank papers, for their user before the settlement authorities concerned. The aforesaid contention hence palpably, makes, a display of there being, no, scribed denial by the defendant vis-a-vis his signatures, existing upon EX.P-4, (iii) thereupon, any denial, of, the signatures, of, the deceased defendant, one Ajit Singh, as, existing upon Ex.P-4, by his wife, is beyond, the apposite pleadings reared in the written statement nor also hence any tenacity can imputed to her testification, as rendered, in respect thereto. 9. 9. Be that as it may, the learned trial Court, had meted overemphasis vis-a-vis the apposite spaces occurring, in, different portions of Ex.P-4, hence, had assigned, merit to the espousal of the counsel, for the defendant, of per se, thereupon the deceased defendant Ajit Singh, during, his life time scribing his signatures upon Ex.P-4, at a stage when no scribings, occurred thereon, (i) besides concomitantly drew an inference, that the deceased defendant, one, Ajit Singh's contention, of his being beguiled to sign thereon, for its being purportedly hence used, before, the settlement authorities concerned, being amenable for credence, being meted thereto. 10. The aforesaid imputation, of, credence vis-a-vis the deceased defendant, one Ajit Singh's espousal, as addressed through his counsel, is also to be tested, within, the ambit of the apposite scribed contention(s), as, reared in his written statement. Since, the summons, are, imperatively enjoined to be accompanied, with a copy of the plaint besides also, all, appended therewith documents, are, also enjoined to accompany, the relevant processes, (i) thereupon, unless evidence, is adduced, of, at the stage contemporaneous, to the deceased defendant, during, his life time, hence being served, thereat only, the apposite summons being delivered upon him, whereas, theirs remaining unaccompanied, by the copy of the plaint, besides with copies, of, all the documents appended therewith, (ii) evidence in respect whereof, is grossly amiss hereat, (iii) thereupon, obviously a conclusion, is rendered open, of, the apposite processes, being also accompanied by a copy of the plaint, and, also at the relevant stage, of, personal service, through, ordinary mode being effectuated, upon, the deceased defendant thereat, also Ex.P-4, theirs being accompanied hence by all appended therewith apt documents. Consequently, when all the aforesaid infirmities, if any, in purported support of the defendants' espousal, addressed through his counsel before the learned trial Court, were apparently discernible, from, a circumspect perusal, of Ex.P-4, and, when at the time contemporaneous, to, the defendants' hence furnishing written statement to the plaint, it was open to his/their counsel, to propagate therein, the aforesaid contention, (iv) whereas, the aforesaid contention remaining unespoused, in the defendant's written statement, (v) also hence estopped the learned trial Court, to proceed, upon, apposite spacings purportedly existing in Ex.P-4, hence untenably, draw an inference, of it, being signed blank, by deceased defendant, one Ajit Singh. Further sequel(s) of the afore gathered inference, is of, the defendant being not beguiled, to scribe his signatures on Ex.P-4, at a stage when it was blank nor it can be concluded of his being beguiled, to make his signatures thereon, for the purpose other than the one in respect whereof, it, stood drawn, (vi) conspicuously, when, in support, of the aforesaid inference, the marginal witness(es) thereto, make, firm testifications, of, the deceased defendant, one Ajit Singh, rather subscribing in their respective presence(s), his signatures on Ex.P-4, (vii) and, also with the stamp vendor concerned, while making his testification, his thereat, making firm echoings, of, the deceased defendant Ajit Singh, purchasing the non judicial stamp paper, from him, testification whereof gathers strength, from, an endorsement, made, on the reverse of Ex.P-4. (viii) Furthermore, with the father of the parties, at contest making a clear, and, candid testification, of deceased defendant Ajit Singh, studying upto 4th or 5th class, when stand conjoined, with, the testifications rendered by the marginal witnesses to Ex.P-4, besides when both cogently prove, of, the deceased defendant one Ajit Singh, subscribing his signatures on Ex.P-4, after its contents being readover and explained to him, (ix) thereupon, a firm inference, is marshalled, of, deceased defendant, one Ajit Singh, with an awakened conscious mind besides after his fully comprehending, all the recitals borne in Ex.P-4, his scribing his signatures thereon, concomitantly also a further firm inference is also mobilised, of, the deceased defendant, one Ajit Singh not signing a blank, Ex.P-4. 11. The learned trial Court, has, unnecessarily over-emphasised, upon, the apposite denial of signatures, by the widow of deceased defendant, one, Ajit Singh, whereas, for the reasons to be ascribed hereiabove, and for the reasons ascribed hereinafter, the aforesaid denial, rather holds no tenacity, (i) conspicuously when the deceased defendant never stepped into the witness box, for making the apposite denial; (ii) whereas his stepping into the witness box, was, hence imperative, especially when thereat alone he was hence enabled to stand faced with Ex.P-4; (iii) and also hence was facilitated, to see his signatures thereon, and, thereafter proceed to make the apposite denial. The denial of signatures by the executant, of any document, during, the pendency of any proceedings, drawn, before the Civil Court concerned, has to occur, only upon the executant concerned, stepping into the witness box, whereat, he is facilitated to see the document and also to make the apposite denial, (iv) and, also for facilitating the counsel for the apposite contestant, to confront him, with, all the requisite material, for hence belying his denial. (v) The mere denial of signatures by any executant, of any document, importantly, when he is not faced, with the document, is insufficient, for per se imputing any credence, to, the apposite denial, the reason being that (vi) the counsel for the apposite litigant is thereupon untenably precluded to confront him, with, all the apposite necessary materials, for hence belying his credibility, and, also is preempted, to, confront him, with, all the documents, wherefrom rather echoings may upsurge, of, his hence admitting execution thereof, and, concomitantly his being estopped to make the denial, (vii) whereafter, the civil courts concerned, may proceed (viii) to hence draw proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., against, any executant, who makes, an incredulous denial. In summa hence, the Court before whom, the apposite denial is made, (a) is enjoined to ensure that the denial is made, upon, the executant concerned, stepping into the witness box; (b) the counsel for the opposite party, being facilitated, to cross-examine him, and, also being enabled to confront him with the apposite material, for belying his denial, whereafter, the Court may discern therefrom, qua whether the drawing, of, proceeding under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., is imperative, against, the witness concerned, (c) and also the Court where before whom or whereon whose records, the apposite document exists, is, alone seized, with, the jurisdiction, to ensure adduction(s), of, evidence in respect of its valid, and, due execution, by the witness concerned, and, no other Court, than the aforesaid Court, holds, the jurisdiction to test the validities of denial, of, signatures, on the apt document, by the apposite executant concerned. Contrarily, hereat all the aforesaid trite expostulations remain visibly unsatiated, hence, the apposite denial, is, unmeritworthy. 12. Contrarily, hereat all the aforesaid trite expostulations remain visibly unsatiated, hence, the apposite denial, is, unmeritworthy. 12. Even though, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended with much vigour, before, this Court, that with the father of the defendant, namely, one Dalip Singh, rather instituting an application, borne in Ex.D-2, wherein, he claimed relief of corrections of revenue entries, application whereof rather standing dismissed, and, in immediate succession thereto, Ex.P-4 being drawn, (i) thereupon, per se an inference being erectable, of, deceased defendant Ajit Singh, subscribing his signatures, on Ex.P-4, when the latter was blank. However, the aforesaid contention is unmeritworthy, (ii) given the apposite application being not moved, by the plaintiff, rather it being moved by the father of the defendant, named one Dalip Singh, whereas, only upon the application being moved by the plaintiff, it, was inferable, of, given his failing, in his endeavour to seek correction of the revenue entries, his rather proceeding to obtain, on blank Ex.P-4, the signatures of deceased defendant, one Ajit Singh. Even otherwise, the effect of the aforesaid contention, is subsumed, by this Court imputing credence, to, the testification(s) rendered by the marginal witness(es) to Ex.P-4, also, its concluding of deceased defendant one Ajit Singh, not subscribing his signatures on Ex.P-4, at a stage when it was blank, rather only subsequent, to, all the recitals carried therein being readover, and, explained to him, and, his comprehending them, in sequel, thereto, his hence volitionally appending, his signatures, on EX.P-4. 13. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court being based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court, has not, excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Substantial questions of law No.1 answered in favour of the respondent, and, against the appellant. 14. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2002, is, affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.