As per own version of the petitioner, he had approached defendant no. 1 for execution of the sale deed on 15.4.2005 and again on 15.3.2006 when defendant no. 1 refused to execute the sale deed. However, in spite thereof, the suit was filed by the plaintiff on 1.8.2008. Moreover, the plaintiff learnt on 5.12.2006 about sale deed in favour of defendant no. 2 but in spite thereof, the plaintiff delayed the filing of the suit for one year and eight months for which there is no explanation. The plaintiff, thus, himself allowed defendant no. 2 to carry out changes in the suit land. Now the plaintiff cannot turn around and seek to injunct defendant no. 2 from changing nature of the suit land. In fact, the plaintiff is guilty of delay and laches at every stage. The plaintiff should have filed the suit immediately when defendant no. 1 refused to execute the sale deed on 15.3.2006 or at least immediately after 5.12.2006 when plaintiff came to know of the sale deed dated 22.6.2005 executed in favour of defendant no. 2. The matter does not rest here. The instant revision petition was instituted without any application for urgent hearing. The revision petition was, therefore, listed in motion hearing on 3.9.2009 but none appeared for the petitioner. The case was adjourned to 2.12.2009 when on request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned for today. Now during more than four and half years after sale deed in favour of defendant no. 2, much water has flown in the Ganges and the plaintiff cannot be permitted to reverse or undo the same at this stage. Even otherwise, the balance of convenience is also in favour of defendant no. 2 and against the plaintiff because defendant no. 2 has spent huge amount in carrying out construction activities and in obtaining necessary sanctions from the
