TARLOK SINGH Vs. VIJAY KUMAR SABHARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

(3.) Shorn of all the details regarding diverse litigations that went on between the parties, suffice it to state that the appellant is the owner of the lands. The respondent is successor-in-interest. The respondent's father admittedly had an agreement of sale on 21/12/1984 executed by the appellant to alienate the lands. In view of the pending proceedings, time for conveyance was further extended by agreement dated 18/8/1984 stipulating that the appellant shall be required to execute the sale deed within 15 days from the date of the order vacating the injunction granted in a suit. We are informed that the suit was initially dismissed and thereafter a review application was also dismissed as withdrawn on 22/3/19866. Initially, the respondent had instituted the suit on 23/12/1987 for perpetual injunction. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code came to be filed for converting the suit into one for specific performance of agreement dated 18/8/19844. That application was filed on 17/7/1989. By order dated 25/8/1989, the amendment was allowed. The appellant carried the matter in revision to the High court in CR No. 2724 of 1989. The High court by order dated 29/1 1/1989 had held thus: