P.K.Deb, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the abovenamed appellant (opposite party 1st Set) against the order dated 2-6-2000 passed by Sri Mahatam Prasad, Sub-ordinate Judge, IX Patna in Misc. case No. 18 of 1996 filed under Order XXI, Rule 99 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for redelivery of possession of the disputed land in question.

2. The appellant Phuiwasi Devi filed Title Suit No. 22 of 1987 for specific performance on an agreement for sale regarding the land situationed at plot Nos. 54, 55 and 60 Khata No. 507 of village Dhakanpura (Boring Road), part of holding Nos. 116/108, circle No. 249, ward No. 34 of Patna Municipal Corporation having an area of 8 khatas 11 dhoors. Originally, the land in question was owned by the respondents second set, namely, Bani Dey, her son Debashish Dey and daughter Jayshree Roy, of whom are now residing in Calcutta. Originally, the land in question was purchased by one Banilata Devi, paternal aunt of late Ashish Kumar Dey. Banilata Devi; bequeathed her entire property including the disputed land in favour of her nephew Ashish Kumar Dey through a Will on 28-7-1957. After the death of Banilata Devi, Ashish Kumar Dey filed an application for grant of probate of the Will before this Court and probate was granted in favour of Ashish Kumar Dey in Testamentary case No. 2 of 1961 and he took over possession over the disputed land along with the other properties mentioned in the Will. He died leaving behind his widow Bani Dey, son Debashish Dey and daughter Jayshree Roy as legal heirs. They also came in possession on the death of their predecessor. An agreement was arrived at between Phuiwasi Devi and the above-mentioned three owners for sale of the disputed land for a consideration of four lakh and the appellant paid the earnest money of Rs. 1 lakh to the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 by way of two bank drafts each of the amount of Rs. 50,000.00 drawn on the State Bank of India oat Bikaner, Jaipur, R Block, Patna, to its branch at Calcutta and a deed of agreement was executed on 12-7-1984. As per the agreement, the original sale deeds of Banilata Dey had also been made over to the appellant. It was stipulated in the agreement that the respondents shall take necessary permission from the authority before executing the sale-deeds on payment of the balance of consideration money of Rs, 3 lakh. The respondents did not take any steps in executing the sale-deeds after receiving the earnest money although several requests were made from the side of the appellants. A legal notice was sent to the respondents but still then no sale-deed was executed. Finding no other alternative, the appellant filed Title Suit No. 27 of 1987 against the respondents second set on 6-1-1987 for enforcing the agreement of sale before the sub-ordinate Judge at Patna. According to the appellant, respondent No. 3 Bani Dey, personally appeared in the suit through,her lawyer on 18-6-1987, filed Vakalatnama and a petition seeking time to file written statement. Her son and daughter also appeared separately on 19-8-1987 through their attorney Nihar Kumar Das. They also filed Vakalatnama and petition for filing written statement through their attorney. Although several adjournments were granted in the suit for filing written statement but the respondents second set, who were defendants in the suit, did not file any statement nor taken any steps in the suit. Subsequently, the suit was heard ex parte. It appears that a petition was filed from the side of the appellant, as plaintiff in the suit, for publication of summons in the news paper as required under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure although there was already appearance by the defendants in the suit but that petition was ultimately not pressed. By the judgment and order dated 8-11-1990, the suit was decreed ex parte by the Sub-ordinate Judge and directed the defendants (respondents second set) to execute the sale-deed within 90 days and, if