The court emphasized the importance of filing an undertaking not to execute a decree until the decision of another suit.

Judgment

( 1 ) THE respondent herein leased out a piece of land in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. After the expiry of the period of lease, the respondent landlord filed Title Suit No. 412 of 1977 for eviction of the appellants. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent entered into three separate agreements for sale of the undivided suit property with the appellants herein and their mother. It is alleged that since the appellants were not willing and ready to purchase the land, the respondent vide notice dated 4/6/1990 cancelled the said agreements for sale. Under such circumstances, the appellants filed a suit for specific performance of sale in respect of the land in dispute on 31-10-1990. In the said suit, the appellants moved an application for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondent from alienating or parting with the property in dispute. The trial court granted injunction as prayed for. Subsequently, the appellants filed an application for amendment of the written statement in Title Suit No. 412 of 1977. By the amendment the appellants defended their possession on the basis of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The said amendment application was allowed and the written statement was amended. On 21/3/1991, Suit No. 412 of 1977 was decreed. The appellants herein preferred an appeal against the said decree. The first appellate court, on 25/2/1992, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the trial court. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred second appeal before the High Court of Calcutta. It may be stated here that the respondent also filed an appeal against the grant of injunction in Title Suit no. 49 of 1990 before the High Court. It is also to be noted that the respondent herein filed an application in Suit No. 49 of 1990 for striking out the allegations in the plaint regarding willingness and readiness on the part of the plaintiffs. The said application was rejected by the trial court. Against the said order, the respondent also filed a revision before the High Court. Consequently, the first appeal, the second appeal and the revision were heard on 18-12-1998. The High Court allowed the second appeal and restored the decree of the trial court. It is against the said judgment, the defendant appellants are in appeal before us.

( 2 ) AFTER we heard the matter, Mr Bhaskar Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr Shantanu Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent agreed to the following order to be passed by this Court: firstly, the decree passed by the High Court is to be affirmed. Secondly, the respondent shall file an undertaking in this Court that she would not execute the decree passed in Suit No. 412 of 1977 till the decision of Title suit No. 49 of 1990.

( 3 ) IN view of agreed statement by counsel for the parties, the decree of the High Court is affirmed in terms of the agreement between the parties without prejudice of rights and contention of the parties in Suit No. 49 of 1990. The respondent shall file the undertaking within a period of three weeks from today. The trial court may make an effort to decide the suit expeditiously, if possible, within a period of six months. Learned counsel for the parties have given assurance that they would not take any unnecessary adjournment. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.