( 1 ) THE defendant-appellant has preferred this review petition in which is impugned the judgment of this Court dated 28. 12. 2004, rendered by Honble B. K. Rathi, J, whereby second appeal was dismissed holding that no substantial question of law arose for decision.

( 2 ) INITIALLY, a preliminary objection was brought to bear assailing the jurisdiction of this Court which was a Court presided over by a Judge other than the Judge who decided the second appeal and therefore, arguments were heard and the preliminary objection was disposed of by means of order dated 31. 3. 2005 in which plea was upheld that review was maintainable. The case was set down for hearing on merit on sustainability of review petition on grounds as envisaged in Order xlvii, Rule 1, C. P. C. for today. It is today that the matter has been heard on merit at prolix length.

( 3 ) A brief resume of necessary facts is essential for proper appreciation of the dispute involved in this case. It would appear that a suit was instituted by the plaintiff-appellant for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sale attended with further relief to deliver possession of the property in question.