Protracting the matter on unsubstantial grounds will not serve the interest of justice.

Prabha Sridevan, J.

The appeal is finally disposed of at the stage of admission itself, by consent of both the learned counsel. An agreement of sale was entered into on 02-11-1986. Thereafter a suit was filed for specific performance in C.S.No.1586 of 1988 by the respondent herein. The appellant filed a suit for bare injunction which is C.S.No.130 of 1990. By a common judgment the suit for specific performance was decreed and the suit for injunction was dismissed. Against that O.S.A.Nos.250 and 251 of 1996 were filed and both were disposed of on 28-06-1999 where O.S.A.No.250 of 1996 was allowed in part confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge in respect of the specific performance and setting aside with regard to injunction and damages. As regards O.S.A.No.251 of 1996, it was allowed in part, the suit was decreed against the second defendant since the Division Bench felt that the plaintiff in O.S.A.No.250 of 1996 is not entitled to the relief of injunction as he is the brother of the other co-owner. In spite of this decree, the respondent herein retained the key to the suit property and therefore, contempt petition No.995 of 2007 was filed. This was disposed of on 15-11-2007 where the contemnor was directed to handover the key on or before a particular date, failing which the applicant was given the opportunity to break open the door of the suit property with the aid of the Inspector of Police, Nungambakkam Police Station. Then the respondent filed a contempt petition No. 94 of 2008 against the appellant herein, alleging that the decree for injunction was violated. This contempt petition was dismissed by the Division Bench on 29-07-2008. Thereafter, E.P.No.19 of 2000 was filed by the respondent seeking for direction to the plaintiff to leave the suit property and deliver vacant possession. A draft sale deed was filed and the Execution Petition was ordered. Against the order of the learned Master, application Nos.2487 and 2488 of 2008 were filed before this Court. On 09-10-2009, by a detailed order the draft sale deed was approved of by this Court except for Paragraph No. 4 and the Registry was directed to do the needful to execute the sale deed as per the modified draft. Against this, the present appeal has been filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the terms of the draft sale deed is contrary to the decree and as per the decree in the O.S.A.Nos.250 and 251 of 1996, the decree for damages was set aside and therefore, clause No.3 of the draft sale deed is not in consonance with the decree in the application. Further, it was also submitted that since the decree for injunction was not granted and the decree for injunction was set aside in the application, clause No.4 of the draft sale deed in the application ought to have been deleted. It was also submitted that in the operative portion of the sale deed, the words used are "he has delivered possession on the date of agreement" and that is wrong since the possession continues to be with the appellant. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that O.S.No.4602 of 1989 is pending before the City Civil Court and C.S.No.1129 of 2007 is pending before this Court and until all the suits are disposed of the sale deed cannot be executed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the draft sale deed was submitted prior to the decree in the O.S.As. He agrees that clause No.3 should stand deleted and he submitted that Clause No.4 had already been deleted by the learned Single Judge. As regards the possession, the learned counsel fairly submitted that instead of words "he has delivered possession on the date of agreement" it shall read as "he has delivered possession on the date of sale deed". However, as regards the question of incorporating recitals relating to pendency of other suits, the learned counsel submitted that the execution of the sale deed is on the basis of the agreement and those re