JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

Leave granted.

2. Dr. S.R. Bawa was the owner of a property bearing House No.169, Section 11-A, in the town of Chandigarh. Two suits for specific performance of contract in respect of the said property were filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Chandigarh; one of them filed by the appellant on the basis of a purported oral agreement for sale entered into on or about 20.6.1995 for a consideration of Rs.32,00,000/- in terms whereof allegedly a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- was deposited in his account through Bankers Cheque on 22.6.1995. The said agreement of the appellant was repudiated by Dr. S.R. Bawa in or about October 1995. A suit for specific performance was filed on 20.11.1995. An ex parte order of injunction was issued passed therein for a limited period but was admittedly extended from time to time, the last one having been extended upto 16.10.1996. An application for extension was filed but no order was passed.

3. Relying on or on the basis of a purported agreement dated 20.6.1995, Sanjeev Sharma also filed a suit on 1.2.1996 for specific performance of contract in respect of the suit property which also stood repudiated by Dr. Bawa. Even in that suit, the Trial Court granted an injunction. Sanjeev Sharma applied for and was impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed by the appellant by an order dated 14.10.1997. Similarly, the appellants application for being impleaded as a defendant was allowed by an order dated 18.12.1997. The issues in both the suits being identical, parties led similar evidence in both the suits. The principal defendant, Dr. Bawa, however, did not lead evidence.

4. The suit filed by Mr. Sanjeev Sharma was referred to the Lok Adalat. However, no settlement was arrived at. A purported compromise was, therefore, entered into by and between Dr. Bawa and Sanjeev Sharma. On or about 19.2.2003, a consent decree was passed, pursuant whereto or in furtherance whereof, a deed of sale was executed by Dr. Bawa in favour of one Puneet Ahluwalia, a nominee of Sanjeev Sharma.

5. Appellant filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 for the recall of the order dated 19.2.2003. Punit Ahluwalia was also impleaded in the said suit as Defendant No.3. By reason of an order dated 21.1.2006, the said application for recall was allowed by the learned trial Judge opining:

(1) The consent decree purported to have been entered into by and between Dr. Bawa and Sanjeev Sharma being in terms of the second part of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same was not valid as deed of sale executed pursuant thereto; and

(2) Although the order of interim injunction passed in the case of the appellant was not extended beyond 16.10.1996, as an application had been filed therefor and as the appellant could not suffer owing to an act of the Court and the same being violative of the order of injunction, the deed of sale was invalid in law. 4.

6. The High Court, however, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction by reason of the impugned judgment, set aside the said order of the learned Judge on the premise that it is the first part of Order 23 Rule 3 which was applicable in the case. It was opined that as the interim order was not extended, the question of execution of any deed of sale in violation of the said order of injunction did not arise. 5.

7. Mr. J.L. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would contend :

(1) The High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned order insofar as it failed to take into consideration that it was a case where the first part of Order 23 Rule 3 would apply; and

(2) In view of the well known legal principle that any party cannot suffer owing to the fault on the part of the Court, the deed of sale dated 25.3.2003 must be held to be bad in law.

8. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would urge :

(1) From the order sheet dated 4.3.2003, it would appear that the willingness of the parti