Mr. T.P.S. Mann, J.:- Suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.2.2006 filed by the appellant stands dismissed by both the Courts below. Hence, the present appeal by him under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The case, as set up by the appellant while filing the suit was that the defendant-respondent, who was having 1/4th share in land measuring 150 kanals 2 marlas situated in village Dher, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad, agreed to sell his share of the land measuirng 37 kanals 10 marlas to the appellant on 20.2.2006 at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. At the time of agreement to sell, the respondent received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as earnest money in the presence of the witnesses. The sale deed was to be executed by the respondent on 25.4.2006 after receiving remaining sale consideration. On the stipulated date, the appellant remained present in the office of Sub Registrar alongwith sufficient amount but the respondent failed to turn up. Accordingly, it was prayed that the possession of the suit land be given by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.2.2006.

3. The respondent opposed the suit wherein he denied ever agreeing to sell the suit property in favour of the appellant. He also denied that he had received an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as earnest money or executed any agreement to sell. According to him, there was a dispute going on between him and Thakar Singh, father of the appellant for the last more than three years. Earlier, the respondent used to lend money to the father of the appellant on interest. He further alleged that his thumbimpressions appearing on the agreement were obtained by the police in February 2006, when he alongwith others had visited Police Post Meyond as one Mahender Singh moved an application against Teja Singh.

4. Both the Courts below, after hearing counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, held that the genuineness of the alleged agreement to sell was in doubt, more so, when there was prior enmity between the parties. Accordingly, the appellant stood non-suited in his suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell.

5. On 10.12.2012, when the appeal came up for preliminary hearing, counsel for the appellant submitted that during the pendency of the first appeal, the appellant had filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. for leading additional evidence but the said application was never decided. Instead, lower appellate Court confined itself to the evidence already available on the record while dismissing the appeal.

6. In view of the stand taken by counsel for the appellant, this Court requisitioned the record of the lower appellate Court. The same has been received and on its examination, it is found that the application filed by the appellant for additional evidence was heard and allowed by the lower Appellate Court on 26.7.2012 and on the same date, the final arguments heard in the appeal and while pronouncing the judgment the appeal was dismissed with costs.

7. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that even though the lower appellate Court allowed the application for additional evidence but did not formally take on record the enquiry report dated 31.10.2006 of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad as no statement of the appellant was recorded that he had tendered in evidence the said enquiry report. It is also submitted that the enquiry report, copy of which has been placed on record of the present appeal as Annexure A-2, was also not taken into consideration by the lower appellate Court while deciding the appeal.

8. A perusal of the application preferred by the appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. before the lower appellate Court shows that he wanted permission to produce enquiry report dated 31.10.2006 of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Reply to the same was filed by the respondent. After hearing arguments o