ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard Mr. Ravi Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (plaintiff). Also heard Mr. Rajesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents (defendants in the suit No. 86/2001/1992). 3. The suit for specific performance was based on the sale agreement dated 28.03.1990 which is shown as Exhibit P-3 in the Trial Court. Two previous sale agreements dated 16.06.1987 and 19.09.1987 in respect of the very same property were marked as Exhibt P-1 and P-2 in the proceedings. The Trial Court rejected the suit for specific performance with the observation that the sale agreement dated 28.03.1990 (Exhibit P-3) could not be proved by the plaintiff. The learned ADJ as the Appellate Court, however, allowed the plaintiff’s appeal and interfered with the dismissal of the suit and decreed specific performance favouring the plaintiff. The High Court under the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2019 however restored the Trial Court’s decree of dismissal of the suit for specific performance. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and have also perused the materials on record. 5. As can be seen from the impugned judgment, the Exhibit P-3 (juxtaposed with Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-2), could not be proved. In fact, there was confusion on who actually is the scribe of the said Exhibit P-3 - whether it is Manohar Lal or Harbans Lal Handa. Three dates are noted in Paragraph 25 and 26 of the impugned order as the dates when allegedly, the possession of the suit land was obtained by the plaintiff. These will make plaintiff’s case as one based on uncertainty and confusion. 6. Therefore, having applied our mind to the reasoning in the impugned judgment, we see no infirmity therein which would justify our interference in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.