failed to prove the case for specific performance, and, at this stage, in second appeal, it would not be proper for me to disturb such findings. There is, however, one peculiar feature in this case. 2. The appellant / plaintiff had sought not only relief of specific performance, but in the alternative, he had also sought relief for refund of the earnest with interest (this relief is given to the appellant). In addition to these usual alternate reliefs, the appellant sought a third relief in the plaint. He said that since he is in possession from the date of agreement, the Court should direct the respondent / defendant not to disturb his possession perpetually. Another peculiar feature of this case is, though the peculiar relief was sought, it appears, it was not pressed even at the trial stage. No issue was framed in respect of this prayer and no finding was given in respect of this prayer. Even at first appeal stage, this issue was not in controversy between the parties. the Appeal Memo in the first appeal did not mention about this prayer. So, at this belated stage, the appellant cannot resort to an abandoned prayer of perpetual injunction. In any case, the appellant is admittedly in possession, and, as on today, the impugned Judgment and decree does not put his possession in jeopardy without following due process of Law. The appellant has failed to make out a case for admission. No substantial question of Law arises in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed.
