JUDGMENT : Mr. Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 18.02.2015 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2 Udaipur vide which application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 6, Rule 16 has been allowed. 2. It is contended by counsel for the defendant-petitioner that a suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff. In June 1988, seeking to enforce an agreement to sale dated 17.10.1985. The defendant petitioner purchased the suit property vide sale deeds dated 04.05.1987, 13.05.1987 and 18.05.1987. There was no relief for cancellation of the sale deeds. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the court below while allowing the application has placed reliance on 1995 DNJ Supreme Court 59, Jugraj Singh & Anr. v. Labh Singh & Ors. which was overruled by the Supreme Court in Ram Awadh & Ors. v. Achhaibar Dubey & Anr. 2000 WLC (SC) Civil, Page 181. It is contended that the Supreme court in Azhar Sultana v. B. Rajamani & Ors. 2009(2) Civil Court Cases 1 (SC) has also followed the decision as laid down in Ram Awadh's case (Supra). 4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the court below has committed grave error in deleting the pleading of the defendant while allowing the application under Order 6, Rule 16. 5. It is contended by counsel for the respondent that a subsequent purchaser can only raise the plea of being a bona fide purchaser for value and he cannot raise any objection with relation to the earlier agreement to sale as he is not a party to that sale agreement and he has no personal knowledge, so as to adduce evidence before the court. 6. Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has placed reliance on AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2663 M.M.S. Investments, Madruai & Ors. v. V. Veerappan & Ors., wherein the Court, in the facts of that case held that the Ram Awadh's case is not applicable, as after the conveyance, the only question to be adjudicated is whether the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. 7. Counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents have also placed reliance on Lakhan Singh & Anr. v. Ram Kumar & Anr. 7. Counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents have also placed reliance on Lakhan Singh & Anr. v. Ram Kumar & Anr. AIR 2013 Rajasthan 155, wherein also the Court observed that where there is a subsequent sale only issue which could be adjudicated in suit would be whether subsequent purchasers were bona fide purchasers for value without notice and after conveyance, question of readiness and willingness of vendee would not be relevant. 8. As regards Order 6, Rule 16, it is contented that the court is required to consider whether the plea is relevant for establishing the defense and any plea which is irrelevant can be struck off by the court. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Iqbal & Ors. v. hakimuddin & Ors. AIR 1995 Rajasthan 123 and Dal Chand v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1983 Raj 23 , wherein the court observed that inconsistent defenses upon contradictory facts cannot be permitted. 9. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the impugned order and the judgment cited at Bar. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court has placed reliance on Jugraj Singh's case (Supra) which stood overruled by a subsequent judgment reported in Ram Awadh's case (Supra). 11. In M.M.S. Investments, Madurai & ors. v. V. Veerappan (Supra) a suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sale dated 23.01.1978. The decree was passed by the trial court, the defendants thereafter, sold large extent of properties in favour of certain other persons. The Court observed that the question relating to plea of readiness and willingness is a concept relatable to an agreement and after conveyance the question of readiness and willingness is not relevant. On facts, therefore, this judgment has no applicability to the present matter in hand. In M.M.S. Investments case, the Supreme Court held that the case of Ram Awadh's case do not apply to the facts before the Supreme Court. In MMS Investment case as there was a conveyance and after a conveyance, the only question which remains is whether the subsequent purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. 12. In Ram Awadh & ors. v. Achhaibar Dubey (supra) was a case facts of which are akin to that of present case. In MMS Investment case as there was a conveyance and after a conveyance, the only question which remains is whether the subsequent purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. 12. In Ram Awadh & ors. v. Achhaibar Dubey (supra) was a case facts of which are akin to that of present case. The facts before the Apex Court while deciding the Ram Awadh's case were that the appellant's legal representative of subsequent purchaser were defendants to a suit by one Bachani for specific performance of an earlier agreement to sale. The question was whether, the subsequent purchaser can plead and contend that the plaintiff was never prepared to perform his part of the agreement. 13. The Court while overruling Jugraj Singh's judgment observed that the plea is available to all the defendants and any defendant can contend and establish that the mandatory requirement of Section 16(c) has not been complied with and the court is required to pass a decree on the conclusion derived at. 14. In Azhar Sultana v. B. Rajamani & Ors. (Supra), the Supreme Court relying on Ram Awadh's case held that not only the original vendor but also a subsequent purchaser is entitled to raise plea that plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. 15. The fact that there is judgment of the Apex Court pronounced by three judge bench, which has been followed in Azhar Sultana's case and which is akin to facts of this case and the judgment reported in M.M.S. Investment (Supra) was on different facts and has no applicability to the facts of this case. The court below has seriously erred in allowing the application placing reliance on an overruled judgment. 16. The writ petition therefore deserves to be and is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the application filed by counsel for the respondent-plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 16 is dismissed.