The intentional violation of the agreement to sell gave rise to a cause of action to file a suit for specific performance, and the suit was not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Rajive Bhalla, J.

1. The appellants impugn the judgments and decrees dated 30.4.1998 and 25.01.2002, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ambala and the Additional District Judge, Ambala, decreeing the suit for specific performance filed by respondent no. 1 and dismissing their appeal.

2. Before proceeding to adjudicate the appeal, it would be necessary to mention here that vide order dated 21.08.2006, appellant no. 1 Smt. Parsani Devi was allowed to withdraw from the appeal. It was however, ordered that the appeal would proceed on behalf of Smt. Lajjo. who is the recipient of the suit property from Smt. Parsani Devi, pursuant to a collusive decree dated 19.08.1991.

3. The plaintiff?respondent no. 1 filed a suit for possession, by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 9.08.1991, executed by Maya Chand as general power of attorney of Parsani Devi. As per the recitals in the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed on 5.06.1992. It was pleaded that as after the execution of the agreement, Parsani Devi and Maya Chand her attorney, made an attempt to alienate the suit land, a suit was filed for grant of a permanent injunction. On 17.08.1991, Parsani Devi and Maya Chand were restrained from alienating the suit land. Despite this order, Parsani Devi suffered a collusive decree dated 19.08.1991, transferring the suit land in favour of Smt. Lajjo, the wife of her general power of attorney, Maya Chand compelling the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance.

4. Parsani Devi contested the suit and apart from raising a large number of preliminary objections, averred that she had not authorized defendant no. 2 to alienate the suit land and therefore, the general power of attorney was cancelled on 16.08.1991 and the cancellation was registered on 19.08.1991. It was further, averred that the suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the relief for specific performance was not included in the suit for permanent injunction. It was also pleaded that the suit is pre? mature as it has been filed before the date fixed for execution of the sale deed.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues ?

"1. Whether the defendant no. 2 was duly appointed as general attorney by defendant no.1 and was allowed to alienate, gift or mortgage the land owned by the defendant no. 1 as alleged in para no. 2 of the plaint ? OPP

2. If issue no. 1 is affirmed, whether the defendant no. 2 had entered into an agreement on behalf of the defendant no. 1 to sell land measuring 15 kanals 4 marlas to the plaintiff at the ate of Rs. 75,000/? per acre on or about 9.8.91? OPP

3. If issue no. 2 is affirmed, whether the defendants had received a sum of Rs. 39,000/? from the plaintiff towards earnest money on 9.8.91 itself, as alleged? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement? OPP

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as alleged ? OPD.

6. Whether the plaintiff lacks locus standi to bring the suit ? OPD.

7. Relief."

After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court held that the agreement to sell has been duly proved and that Maya Chand was authorized to execute it. It was also held that as the cause of action for filing the suit for specific performance arose during the pendency of the suit for permanent injunction, the suit is neither premature nor barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also declared that the collusive decree dated 19.08.1991, suffered by Parsani Devi in favour of Lajjo, did not effect the rights of respondent No. 1. As a result, the trial court decreed the suit.

6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.2002, the Additional District Judge, Ambala, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial c