P. S. BRAHME, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records.

( 2 ) THE order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4756 of 2004 on 25th February, 2005 is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition confirming the order dated 4-10-2004 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Amravati. The learned Joint civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Amravati vide his order dated 4-10-2004 dismissed the r. M. J. C. No. 33 of 2004 filed by the appellant wherein he has sought for extension of time and R. M. J. C. No. 59 of 2004 filed by respondent No. 1 for rescission of contract came to be allowed.

( 3 ) THE facts which are not in dispute may be stated in brief as follows :-The appellant filed Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 2001 on 30-3-2001 against the respondent No. 1 (sole defendant) for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement of sale dated 9-2-2001 whereunder the defendant agreed to sell his house property to the appellant. The learned Civil Judge by his judgment and order dated 29-12-2001 decreed the suit and the appellant was directed to pay balance amount of Rs. 72,00,000/- within three months from the date of judgment/decree. It was further observed that if the defendant fails to execute the sale deed of the suit property within four months, the appellant/plaintiff would be entitled to obtain the sale deed from the Court. However, the appellant/plaintiff could not deposit the entire amount within the stipulated period of three months because of dispute as to title of the suit property raised by respondent Nos. 2 to 6. Before filing of the suit, the appellant had issued notice on 24-2-2001 calling upon the respondent No. 1 to execute the sale deed. The respondent No. 1 gave reply to this notice on 26-2-2001 and also published a notice in Newspaper by which the respondent No. 1 admitted that he had received Rs. 50,000/- towards sale consideration and that he has signed the agreement dated 9-2-2001. He also informed the appellant by the said notice that he did not want to sell the property and therefore, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was being returned by the demand draft. The appellant gave reply to this reply on 1-3-2001 and returned the said demand draft of Rs. 50,000/- to respondent No. 1 contending that the agreement dated 9-2-2001 between them was a concluded contract and that the respondent no. 1 could not resile from the said agreement. In addition to that, the appellant published a notice in the local Newspaper "hindustan", dated 24-2-2001 inviting objections, if any; upon which the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 - the sons of respondent No. 1 and late Nandkishor - of whom respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are wife and sons, took objection by giving a notice dated 1-3-2001. Apart from that, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and late Nandkishor also published a notice in the local newspaper dated 24-2-2001 and controverted the claim of the appellant on the basis of the agreement of sale contending that they have also share in the suit/house property along with the respondent No. 1. That is how, the respondents have thrown cloud on the title of respondent No. 1 over the suit property. In addition to that, the appellant noticed that after passing of the decree the respondent No. 1 has shifted his residence from the suit property to a flat because there were disputes between respondent No. l on one hand and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 on the other. So after passing of the decree, the appellant published a notice in Newspaper "hindustan", dated 22-2-2004 inter alia informing that the decree had been passed and inviting the objections, if any to the execution of the sale deed in pursuance of the decree. It is the contention of the appellant that in response to the notice published on 22-2-2004 respondent nos, 5 and 6 met him on 24-2-2004 and told that respondent No. 1 has shifted his residence from the suit property to a flat because there were disput