A.B. Srivastava, J. - (1.) AFFIDAVITS having been exchanged between the parties to this writ petition, with their consent the petition is being finally disposed of and the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the Petitioner -Plaintiff has sought quashing of an order dated 27.5.1992 of the IInd Munsif and revisional order dated 25.10.1993 of the Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr rescinding a contract for a decree for specific performance of which was passed by the courts below. The suit was filed by the Petitioner -Plaintiff against the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 with allegations that the Respondent No. 4 Chandrabhan had entered into an agreement with him on 18.4.1984 to sell immovable property for Rs. 11,832 of which Rs. 5,000 was paid in advance. Instead of executing the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 4 executed a sale deed in favour of Respondent No. 3 Smt. Saroj who had knowledge of the agreement in favour of the Plaintiff. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, the said decree was affirmed on 2.11.1988 by the appellate court to the following effect: The suit of the Plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sale dated 18.4.1984 is decreed with costs. The Defendant No. 1 Chandrabhan is directed to execute a sale -deed in respect of the disputed plot in favour of the Plaintiff -Bhrahmpal Singh and the Defendant No. 2 Smt. Saroj is directed to Join in the conveyance. The sale -deed shall be executed in 30 days on the Plaintiff paying the balance consideration amount Rs. 6,832 and his bearing the court fee stamp scribing charges and the registration charges. The said amount of Rs. 6,832 shall be payable to Smt. Saroj Defendant No. 2 which will be adjusted against the consideration money paid by her to Chandrabhan, Defendant No. 1 in the sale -deed dated 25.6.1984. in case of default by the Defendant the Plaintiff shall be entitled to get the sale -deed executed through court at the costs and expenses of Defendants. The Defendants shall be liable to deliver possession of the disputed land to the Plaintiff -Appellant at the time of the execution of the sale -deed.
(3.) WHEN an application for execution was moved by the Petitioner in the year 1989, the Respondent No. 3, i.e., subsequent purchaser opposed the same, he moved an application under Section 28, Specific Relief Act (Annexure 6) to rescind the contract on the ground that the Petitioner did not pay balance consideration within thirty days despite oral request and serving a notice allowing time upto 9.2.1989 to him, and as such contract is liable to be rescinded and the Respondent No. 3, as well as vendor Respondent No. 4, relieved from the liability of executing the sale -deed. This application was allowed by the trial court, and revision against the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, by the two Impugned orders.;