1. This appeal is filed by the defendant as against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2007 passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Pondicherry, in O.S.No.167 of 2004, which was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell.

2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

(i) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit as against the appellant/defendant seeking the following reliefs:

"...to pass a judgement and decree in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant:

i) directing the defendant to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and to deliver possession of suit property as per the sale agreement dated 10.2.2004 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff.

ii) failing which the plaintiff prays this Hon'ble Court to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule of property directly;

iii) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit property in favour of third parties.

iv) to award the cost of the suit."

(ii) The defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement. Whereupon issues were framed.

(iii) During trial, on the plaintiff's side, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On the defendant's side, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked.

(iv) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree of the trail Court, this appeal has been filed by the defendant on various grounds.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, by placing reliance on the grounds of appeal, would develop his arguements, the thumbnail sketch of the same would run thus:

(i) The trial Court even though placed reliance on the hand writing expert's opinion, it was not got marked at all in the way known to law.

(ii) The trial Court should not have placed reliance on such expert's opinion, without examining the expert and subjecting him to cross-examination by the appellant/defendant concerned.

(iii) The relevant documents were not sent to the expert also for the purpose of examination.

(iv) The readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to prove his part of the contract was not at all considered by the trial Court under issue No.(ii).

(v) The trial Court simply took it for granted the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit.

(vi) The oral extension of time for performing the plaintiff's part of the contract by the defendant was not proved before the Court.

(vii) Sections 16 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act was not considered by the trial Court.

(viii) The appellant/defendant specifically contended that Ex.A6-the alleged agreement to sell is a forged document. When such was the position, the trial Court was not justified in rendering judgement, placing reliance on such unproved expert's opinion.

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would pray for setting aside the judgement and decree of the trial Court and for dismissing the original suit.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant, by inviting the attention of this Court to M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011, would submit that the appellant wants to file additional documents before this Court and also seeks to mark them. Pending this appeal, M.P.1 of 2010 was filed by a third party, alleging that pending the original suit, the plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell with him relating to the suit property. However, this Court dismissed the said application, vide order dated 26.11.2010, even then the defendant wants to rely upon such agreement to sell, which emerged