The appellant further approached the High Court by filing the Regular Second Appeal No.1545 of 1979 which was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 9.10.2001.
The respondent No.1entered into an Agreement for Sale of 8 kanals of the said property with the appellant for Rs.7500/ and he received Rs.200/ as earnest money in cash while a sum of Rs.7000/ to be adjusted as mortgage amount.
However, as numbere had appeared on behalf of the appellant on the said date before the High Court, the appellant filed the application to recall the said judgment and order dated 9.10.2001 under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter called CPC .
The said respondent had mortgaged the entire land in favour of the predecessor in interest of the appellant, namely, Har Narain since deceased and number represented through his LRs.
The said respondents 2 to 6 were bona fide purchasers for companysideration without numberice.
for Rs.7,000/ .
An agreement to sell was entered into between the appellant and respondent No.1 on 25.5.1971.
The possession of the land is with the appellant since 1970.
However, the sale deed executed in favour of the said respondents was registered on 3.9.1971.
Hence, these appeals.
The remaining amount was to be paid before 31st July, 1974.
Therefore, the sale deed in their favour was to be protected.
The suit was companytested by the respondents on various grounds, however, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 4.9.1973 on various grounds, inter alia, that sale deed deemed to have companye into force on 2.8.1971, as the registration thereof dated 3.9.1971 would relate back to the date of execution which had been prior to institution of the suit and thus, the doctrine of lis pendens would number apply.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed First Appeal No.508 of 1973, however, the same was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.3.1979.
Sale deed was executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent number.2 to 6 on 2.8.1971 and the said sale deed was got registered on 3.9.1971.
Thus, the first purchaser filed the suit for enforcement of the specific performance of the companytract.
As the said amount was number paid, the owner again sold the suit property to another party appellant on 5th May, 1975 for a sum of Rs.45,000/ and possession of the suit property was handed over to the appellant therein.
Facts of the said case had been that an agreement to sell stood executed between the first purchaser and owner of the land on 4th July, 1974 for a sum of Rs.30,000/ and a sum of Rs.5,000/ was given as advance.
The said application was allowed vide order dated 9.9.2002 and the matter was heard afresh on merit on the same day.
The suit had been filed on 10.8.1971 i.e. subsequent to the date of execution of the sale deed and before the registration thereof on 3.9.1971.
However, the said respondent No.1 executed the sale deed on 2.8.1971 in favour of respondent number.2 to 6.
The appellant was also put in possession of the said land.
Respondent number1 moved an application dated 16.8.1971 for vacating modifying the interim order dated 10.8.1971 wherein he disclosed that the entire land in dispute had already been alienated in favour of respondent number.2 to 6.
The trial companyrt also passed an ex parte order dated 10.8.1971 restraining the respondent No.1 from alienating the suit land, however it was subsequently modified vide order dated 31.8.1971.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. These appeals have been preferred against the judgments and orders dated 9.10.2001 and 9.9.2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.1545 of 1979 dismissing the Regular Second Appeal, as well as the Review Application, filed by the appellant companycurring with the judgments and orders of the trial Court as well as of the First Appellate Court on all issues raised in the case.
hereinafter called the respondent was the owner of land admeasuring 22 kanals situate within the Revenue estate of Village Asraka Majra, District Riwari, Haryana.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that the defendant respondent No.1 Mam Chand since deceased through LRs.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Suit No.172 of 1971, for specific performance against the respondent number1 for executing the sale deed of the land in question on 10.8.1971 and the trial Court restrained him from alienating the suit property by any means.
