RAVENDRA SINGH Vs. SHRICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was admitted on 30.9.2002 and on that date, the execution of the sale deed was also stayed till further orders. The respondent -opposite parties have applied for vacation of the stay order. It is contended that a caveat was filed in this case but by mistake of the office, It was not reported. Therefore, the appeal was admitted and stay order was granted after hearing thecounsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent could not be heard. It is further contended that the suit was filed for specific performance of contract of sale, which was decreed by the trial court, and the first appellate court has maintained the decree and there are two concurrent findings.

(2.) I have heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R. P. Goel, learned Sr. Advocate for the respondents.

(3.) THE second argument of the learned counsel is that the judgment of the appellate court show that this question was not raised before the appellate court. That, therefore, this question cannot be raised in the second appeal as has been held in Vijay Prakash v. Gurmit Singh, 1977 (UP) RCC 168.