(1) SPECIAL Leave granted. Arguments heard.

(2) THIS appeal by the unsuccessful defendant who has suffered a decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell relating to a piece of immovable property, is Directed against the order dated 6/08/1987 of the High court of Punjab and Haryana in RSA No. 2569 of 1987 dismissing, in limine, appellants second appeal.

(3) AMARJIT Singh, respondent I, brought the Civil Suit No. 3397/82/259.80 in the court of Sub-Judge 1st Class; Patiala for specific enforcement of an agreement to sell dated 14/02/1979 said to have been executed in his favour by the appellant respecting the suit property. After service of summons, appellant entered appearance and filed his written statement. But on D 7/12/1981 he was placed ex parte for "default of non-appearance". On 4/02/1982, plaintiff (respondent 1 examined two witnesses on his side. But later the same day appellant appears to have filed an application presumably under Order 9, Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code to have the earlier order dated 7/12/1981 placing him ex parte set aside. This application was dismissed for default on 25/09/1982. On Se 30/09/1982 appellant filed an unsigned application for setting aside that order of dismissal dated 25/09/1982 and also for setting aside the order dated 7/12/1981 placing him ex parte. This application was dismissed by the trial court on 25/02/1983 on the ground that it had not been signed by the appellant. However, the High court in revision allowed appellants prayer and remitted that application for a fresh disposal, after affording to the appellant the opportunity to sign that application. Pursuant thereto, that application was signed by the appellant on 25/05/1983; but on 16/09/1983 the application was again dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it was barred by time. The trial court took the view that the date of affixture of the signature was to be reckoned as the date of its filing and, accordingly found it out of time.

(4) ON the same day, the trial court on the basis of the evidence of the two witnesses examined earlier for the plaintiff, decreed the suit.

(5) AGAINST this decres, appellant filed an appeal in the court of Additional District Judge, Patiala. The learned District Judge appears to have concurred with the trial courts view that the application dated 30/09/1982 was barred by time. Learned District Judge held :

FOR all these reasons I agree with the lower court that application dated 30/09/1982 was barred by limitation and deserves dismissal on this ground.....

(6) THE reason for holding that the application was statute barred was that:

APPLICATION dated 30/09/1982 was admittedly not signed when it was presented in court on that day but it was subsequently signed by defendant 1 on 12/05/1983. There was no application in the eyes of law on 30/09/1982 as it was not duly signed by defendant 2. It became a proper application only on 12/05/1983 when it was signed by defendant 1 and so it must be deemed to have been filed on that date . .

(7) THE understanding by both the courts of the directions of the High court in the revision proceedings permitting appellant to sign the application may not be a correct one. But that order was not assailed by the appellant in the appropriate proceedings. However, the learned District Judge set aside the decree dated 16/09/1983 on some other ground and remitted the suit to the trial court for a fresh disposal. The operative part of the judgment dated February 14, 1986 of the learned District Judge is in the following terms :

IN the result I accept the appeal set aside the judgement and decree passed by the lower court and remand the case to the lower court i.e. court of Shri J. R. Singia, which is successor court of the court of Shri G. K. Rai with the direction to re-admit the suit under its original number in the register of civil suits and proceed to determine the suit afresh in the lig