ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The respondent has filed a suit for specific performance and after the evidence of the appellant was closed on 12.3.1991, the defendant s evidence was directed to be recorded on 20.3.1991. It would appear that the matter was adjourned from time to time till 11.1.1994. On that date, the respondent seemed to have declined to contest the suit and sought adjournment. The application for adjournment was rejected and after hearing arguments, judgment was reserved and was pronounced on 14.1.1994. Respondent No. 2 made an application on 27.1.94 to set aside the decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Similar application was filed by other respondents. While that application was pending, the appellant moved an application objecting to the maintainability of the application and to hear it a a preliminary point. That petition came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 7.10.95. Against the said order, the appellant filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and that was dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.12.95 by the High Court. Thus this appeal by special leave.

3. On the last occasion when the matter had come up for admission, we had asked the learned co