Proper companyrt fees were number paid thereupon.
The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit.
Having regard to an objection taken in that behalf by the first respondent herein in his written statement, allegedly another suit was filed by her on 23.3.1987, which was marked as O.S. No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
She was a tenant in a portion of the premises in respect whereof the agreement of sale dated 1.4.1986 is said to have been entered into by and between the parties hereto.
2976 OF 2004 B. SINHA, J Plaintiff, in a suit for specific performance of companytract, is the appellant herein.
By reason of the impugned judgment, however, the High Court has reversed the same, holding In view of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the permission for filing another suit on the same cause of action having number been obtained, the second suit was number maintainable and The agreement of sale dated 1.4.1986 being vague, numberdecree for specific performance companyld be granted.
