which was the subject of the suit for specific performance. The judgment debtor took a defence that the agreement sued upon by Dalbir Singh was a fabricated document and the said suit had been dismissed on 19.07.2012. Significantly, it was not a plea of the judgment debtor that there had been any act of collusion of the decree holder in setting up Dalbir Singh to file a suit. During the pendency of suit, there had been admittedly an order of injunction restraining the judgment debtor, who was the defendant to the said suit from alienating the property. Since the decree holder was a party, he knew about a claim to the same property at the instance of yet another person and a subsistence of an order of injunction that had been issued against the judgment debtor in the said suit. The decree holder's contention was that he moved an application for deposit on 13.08.2012, that is, immediately within a month from the date when the decree was passed on 19.07.2012 dismissing the suit filed by Dalbir Singh and vacating the order of injunction. The contention, therefore, was that there had been no lapse on his part and he could not have secured a sale deed within time prescribed by the Court under the decree under an extraordinary circumstances of an order of injunction issued in another case.
