1. This Miscellaneous (First) Appeal is by the defendant against order dt. 15-7-80 in Misc. Case No. 18 of 1979, by which the court below has refused to set aside the ex parte decree dated 11-4-79 passed in Title Suit No. 106 of 1978.

2. The original defendant (Raghunandan Singh) died during the pendency of the present appeal and, by order dated 8-8-85 his heirs and legal representatives were substituted.

At this very stage it is also pertinent to state that as a result of an order of this Court dated 16-5-84, an enquiry was ordered to be done by the trial court as there was a dispute as to whether the applicants (claiming to be the heirs of the appellant (Raghunandan Singh) were the real heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Raghunandan Singh or Smt. Sita Devi was the sole heir and legal representative of the aforesaid deceased Raghunandan Singh, who, according to the respondent, was the daughter of the deceased Raghunandan Singh.

Pursuant to that order the enquiry was held by the learned Subordinate Judge. Begusarai. He reported that the applicants (claiming to be the heirs of the deceased Raghunandan Singh) were the true heirs of the deceased and further reported that the alleged daughter Smt. Sita Devi was not the real daughter of the deceased Raghunandan Singh.

However, by order dated 8-8-85, this Court allowed the present appellants to be substituted as the heirs and legal representatives of the original sole appellant Raghunandan Singh (since deceased) and also ordered Smt. Sita Devi to be added as a party respondent in the present appeal as also as a defendant in T.S. No. I06 of 1978 in the event of the same being restored. This Court further ordered that Smt. Sita Devi may raise any separate dispute for her interest in the property of the deceased sole appellant and the learned counsel for the appellants did not put any objection to such an order being made.

Thus, Smt. Sita Devi was also added as party respondent in the present appeal (as respondent No. 2) and this Court also ordered that she would be at liberty to apply for addition as a party defendant in T.S. No. 106/78 in the event of the same being restored on the miscellaneous appeal being allowed, It was also ordered that she shall be at liberty to file any separate suit, if so advised.

3. The plaintiff (respondent No. 1) on 11-11-78 filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale with respect to 2 Bighas, 17 Dhurs and 10 dhurkis of land situate in village Khambhar, P.S. and district Begusarai. Alternatively the plaintiff also prayed for a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 from the defendant.

4. The plaintiffs case was that on 25-6-78 the defendant agreed to sell him 2 Bighas, 17 Dhurs and 10 Dhurkis of land (detailed at the foot of the plaint) for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. On receipt of Rs. 10,000.00 by way of advance, out of the aforesaid consideration money, the defendant executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff on that date and agreed to execute the sale deed in his favour by 9-9-78 on receipt of the balance consideration money of Rs. 5,000/-.

The plaintiffs further case was that he thereafter, asked the defendant many a time to receive the balance consideration money from him and to execute the sale deed in his favour, as per the aforesaid agreement, but the defendant went on putting off the matter. Resultantly, the plaintiff sent to the defendant Pleader Notice on 12-8-78, but he refused receive the same on 16-8-78.

5. The plaintiffs further case was that he was and is always ready to get the sale-deed in question executed by the defendant on payment of the aforesaid balance amount of Rs. 5,000/-. As the defendant went on putting off the matter, hence the suit (on 11-11-78).

6. For deciding the point involved in the present appeal, which I will indicate hereafter, it will be most pertinent to deal, in detail, the various dates fixed in the suit for issuance of notice, service of notice and so on.

7. Before I in