ORDER 1. The petitioner herein is the original plaintiff, the respondent no.1 is the original owner of the suit property and the respondent no.2 is the subsequent purchaser. 2. It is the case of the petitioner herein that he entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent no.1 way back on 7.7.1993. In the agreement of sale, total sale consideration of Rs.3 lakh was fixed. It is the case of the petitioner that he paid in all Rs.2.90 lakh towards earnest money. 3. It appears that before the respondent no.1 could execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein, he sold the property to the respondent no.2 sometime on 22.7.1993. 4. In such circumstances, the petitioner instituted a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement, referred to above. 5. The Trial Court framed the following issues:- "(1) Whether the valuation of the suit property and the court fee paid are sufficient and proper? (2) Whether there has been an agreement for sale dated 7-7-1993 in respect of plaint schedule entered into between plain tiff and D1 as alleged? (3) Whether the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs. 2,90,000/-to the first defendant on 7-7-93 towards advance sale consideration as alleged? (4) Whether the agreement for sale dated 7-7-93 is vitiated by fraud and coercion as contended? (5) Whether the 2nd defendant is a bonafide purchaser for value and consideration without notice of the agreement for sale date 7-7-93 as contended? (6) Whether the sale deed No. 2540/93 dated 22-7-93 executed by D 1 in favour of 2nd defendant is liable to be set aside for all or any of the reasons set forth in the plaint? (7) Whether the plaintiff has ever been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. (8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance as prayed form? (9) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to realize the plaint amount as an alternative relief? (10) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to realise the plaint amount as an alternative relief? (11) Reliefs and costs?" 6. It is the case of the respondents herein that in fact there was a prior agreement of sale with respect to the very same suit property between the two respondents herein, therefore, on the strength of that prior agreement of sale the respondent no.1 executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent no.2. 7. (11) Reliefs and costs?" 6. It is the case of the respondents herein that in fact there was a prior agreement of sale with respect to the very same suit property between the two respondents herein, therefore, on the strength of that prior agreement of sale the respondent no.1 executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent no.2. 7. The suit came to be allowed vide the judgment and order dated 25-03-2004. The operative part of the order passed by the trial court reads thus:- "In the result suit is decreed and a decree for Specific performance of Ext.A1 granted directing defendants 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed in respect of plaint schedule properties in favour of plaintiff within a period of one month. The plaintiff shall deposit the balance consideration of Rs.10,000/- within that period with due notice to the defendants, who shall surrender possession of the properties with title deed and other documents falling which the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed executed through process of Court. I find no reason to disallow cost to the plaintiff." 8. The respondents herein being dissatisfied with the judgement and decree passed by the trial court granting specific performance, went in appeal before the High Court with their respective first appeals. The High Court seems to have reversed the decree of specific performance passed by the trial court on the ground that there is nothing on record to indicate that an amount of Rs. 2.90 lakh was paid by the plaintiff towards the earnest money. 9. The High Court proceeded further to observe that in fact there was nothing on record to indicate that the plaintiff had necessary funds to pay to the original owner and get the sale deed executed. 10. Prime facie we are not convinced with the reasonings assigned by the High Court. We will have to look into the matter in details. However, we would like to grant one opportunity to the parties to sit and talk for some amicable settlement. We grant three weeks' time. During this interregnum period, if the parties are able to negotiate and come to an amicable settlement, it is well and good, otherwise, on the next date of hearing, we shall proceed to hear this matter on merits. 11. We grant three weeks' time. During this interregnum period, if the parties are able to negotiate and come to an amicable settlement, it is well and good, otherwise, on the next date of hearing, we shall proceed to hear this matter on merits. 11. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that it has come to their notice that there is further transfer of the suit property by the respondent no.2 in favour of his nephew. This fact has been brought to our notice by filing an I.A. 12. List after three weeks.