JUDGMENT :- This appeal raises the question of the scope and applicability of Order XLI, Rule 33, C.P.C. and it arises in the following circumstances. The plaintiff-appellant sued for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The agreement was executed by the first defendant the father, for himself and on behalf of his undivided minor sons, defendants 2 and 3, on 27-3-1958. In contravetion of this agreement, however, these defendants executed a sale deed in favour of the fourth defendant (Plaintiff) alleged, that the fourth defendant had notice of the agreement of sale in his (Plaintiff's) favour. The first defendant remained ex parte and his minor sons disputed the truth, validity and binding nature of the agreement. The fourth defendant claimed to be a bonafide purchaser, and he further claimed that there was an agreement in his favour anterior to that upon which the plaintiff relied. The trial Court found upon the evidence that the agreement set up by the fourth defendant was not anterior to the plaintiff's agreement. It was also found that the fourth defendant was not a bona fide purchaser and that he had notice of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The tria