ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL FILED BY THE RESPONDENT WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIAL COURT HOLDING THE AGREEMENT TO BE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. THE PLAINTIFF PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL IN THE HIGH COURT. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HEREIN, THAT IS THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, FAILED TO APPEAR AND ASSIST THE COURT. THE HIGH COURT HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT BEFORE IT. THE ONLY POINT THAT WAS ARGUED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WAS THAT THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT HOLDING THE AGREEMENT TO BE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE WAS NOT CORRECT. THE HIGH COURT DID NOT AGREE WITH THE TRIAL COURT AND REVERSED ITS ABOVESAID FINDING. IN THE OPINION OF THE HIGH COURT, THE AGREEMENT WAS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.

3. HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT THAT THE HIGH COURT DID NOT GO INTO ANY OTHER ISSUE AND HAVING REVERSED THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT ON THE QUESTION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT IN EVIDENCE DIRECTED THE SUIT TO BE DECREED. IN PARTICULAR, THE HIGH COURT DID NOT EXAMINE WHETHER BY REFERENCE TO SECTION 20 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 IT W