ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. Shorn of all the details regarding diverse litigations that went on between the parties, suffice it to state that the appellant is the owner of the lands. The respondent is successor-in-interest. The respondent s father admittedly had an agreement of sale on December 21, 1984 executed by the appellant to alienate the lands. In view of the pending proceedings time for conveyance was further extended by agreement dated August 18, 1984 stipulating that the appellant shall be required to execute the sale deed within 15 days from the date of the order vacating the injunction granted in a suit. We are informed that the suit was initially dismissed and thereafter a review application was also dismissed as withdrawn on March 22, 1986. Initially, the respondent had instituted the suit on December 23, 1987 for perpetual injunction. The application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC came to be filed for converting the suit into one for specific performance of agreement dated August 18, 1984. That application was filed on July 17, 1989. By order dated August 25, 1989, the amendment was allowed. The appellant carried the matter in revis