1. The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered by this Court in this defendant No. 1's second appeal is as under :-

“Whether the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction in relation to the lands possessed under the agreement to sell was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ?”

2. The imperative facts required for determination of above–stated substantial question of law are as under :-

[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial Court]

(2.1) Plaintiff Trilochan filed a bare suit for permanent injunction stating inter-alia that the original defendant No. 2 Bakshi has entered into agreement to sell the suit land bearing Khasra No. 304, area 1.04 acre and Khasra Nos. 478/2 and 481, area 0.10 acre of land and house situated therein on 25.03.1988 for cash consideration of Rs.12,000/- and obtained Rs.4,000/- and delivered the peaceful possession of the land/house to the plaintiff but defendant No. 1 got his name registered in the suit land/suit house therefore, defendant No. 1 be restrained by way of permanent injuncti