JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the second appeal filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ‘CPC’).

2. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and had filed the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 31.1.1972. Suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. The second defendant-respondent no.2 took the stand that he was the purchaser subsequent to the agreement for sale, he had no knowledge of the agreement and had no notice of the sale and he is not bound by the earlier agreement of sale. The Trial Court came to hold that defendant no.2 had knowledge of the agreement. The First Appellate Court held that either he had dishonest notion or had notice. At the time of the admission in the second appeal the following question of law was formulated:

“Whether the Court below was just in placing reliance on the order of the Assistant Commissioner, who rejected the permission of sale of the land and thus hold against the appellant?”

3. Thereafter with the foll