recorded contrary to the evidence on record. It is his submission that both the Courts have ignored the material facts and admissions in the cross-examinations of the Plaintiff and Shri. Mukund R. Pathak, Advocate and therefore, the findings are perverse. Mr. Kulkarni, submitted that sale receipts of Indica Car purchased by the Plaintiff is not accepted by the Courts and therefore, the same cannot be relied on to hold that the power of attorney is a forged document. He pointed out sale-receipt dated 9th June 2006 at Exhibit-65, power of attorney dated 9th June 2008 at Exhibit-64 and Bharna Pavati dated 18th August 2010 at Exhibit-66 and contended that the said un-exhibited Indica Car receipt when compared with the Indica car receipt produced by the Defendant below Exhibit-65 clearly shows that the stamp paper, serial numbers, stamp vendor name, date of purchase etc. are completely different. Mr. Kulkarni, submitted that the said alleged original Indica car receipt on which both the Courts have relied, is totally illegal as the original copy of the sale receipt is not produced in the evidence. He submitted that Exhibit-65 is the document, by which Indica car is sold to the Defendant and therefore, the original of said document has come from the custody of the
