The first appellant filed Execution Application No.
6/85 in which the respondent filed five unsuccessful objections.
Pursuant to the recommendation of the Law Commission clause c was brought on statute by Section 88 i c of the Amending Act 104 of 1966 with effect from February 1, 1977.
On August 10, 1983, the sale deed was executed through companyrt.
Thereafter the suit was got dismissed for number prosecution.
On appeal, the High Court in Misc.
The 4th round of litigation was started by the respondent in filing the present suit on December?,
In May 1984, the Trial Court rejected the application for ad interim injunction which was companyfirmed, on appeal, by the High Court on July 14, 1987.
83 of 1984 and also sought for temporary injunction from dispossession.
The third round of litigation was started at the behest of his sons in O.S. No.
109/90 dated August 7, 1990.
This was also companyfirmed by the High Court in Civil Revision No.
In the meanwhile a part of the property, namely, shops were obtained as symbolical possession by the first appellant.
Appeal No.
498/90 and 501/90 by the impugned order dated February 26, 1991 allowed the applications and granted ad interim injunction restraining the appellants from taking possession of the residential portion.
On appeal, the High Court in Misc.
Even thereafter 5th objection was filed on May 23, 1989 which was dismissed on October 24, 1989.
The Trial Court by order dated November 3, 1990 dismissed the application.
They also sought for ad interim injunction which was rejected on July 7, 1988.
Appeals Nos.
The first was dismissed on March 4, 1987.
1988 pleading, that the first appellant being his companynsel played fraud on him, in paragraphs 9 and 10, the details of which are number material for the purpose of this case.
Earlier thereto there was numberexpress power except the inherent power under Section 151, C.P.C. to grant ad interim injunction against dispossession.
The second one on December 4, 1987, which was companyfirmed on revision by the High Court on January 20, 1988.
The third one on October 4, 1987 and fourth one on January 17, 1989.
51,000/ .
He also sought for an interim injunction from dispossession.
He laid the suit for specific performance and the suit was decreed ex parte.
Ramaswamy, J. Leave granted.
Sri S. K. Jain, on his application, is discharged.
Heard the companynsel on either side.
On June 14, 1979 the first appellant claimed to have entered into an agreement to purchase the residential house situated in Jaipur for a companysideration of Rs.
On April 28, 1984, the respondents wife filed Suit No.
This is the fourth round of litigation relating to the same subject matter.
177/88 companyfirmed it by the order dated July 26, 1988.
