ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. SECOND APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HIGH COURT HOLDING THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED THEREIN. HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DEED DATED 13-3-1984 WAS A SALE DEED OR A MORTGAGE DEED BY CONDITIONAL SALE WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW REQUIRING DETERMINATION BY THE HIGH COURT. IN THIS VIEW, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND REMAND SECOND APPEAL NO. 1023 OF 2002 FOR FRESH DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT TO CONSIDER THE AFORESAID AND ANY OTHER QUESTION OF LAW WHICH THE HIGH COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO FRAME. THE HIGH COURT WOULD DO WELL TO DECIDE THE SAID APPEAL EXPEDITIOUSLY, PREFERABLY WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS.

3. THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY.

4. STATUS QUO REGARDING POSSESSION SHALL BE MAINTAINED TILL THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL BY THE HIGH COURT.