' SAAD JAOOD JAN, J.---Respondent No,1 was an employee of respondent No,2. He was allotted a plot in a scheme prepared by respondent No,2. He paid the first instalment of Rs,300. Subsequently, he withdrew the said amount in the belief that the scheme had been annulled by the Government and fresh applications would be invited for making the allotments. He however did not withdraw the security of Rs,50 which he had earlier furnished while applying for the plot, thus keeping his application for a plot alive. Treating the withdrawal of the instalment as equivalent to the surrender of the plot already allotted to him, respondent No,1 cancelled the allotment and instead gave the same plot to the petitioner. Respondent No,1 agitated against the cancellation of his plot. When he failed to obtain any relief from respondent No,2 he filed a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement which he had earlier entered into with respondent No,2 for the purchase of the plot. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge but it was dismissed. He filed a revision petition in the High Court but that too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that after respondent No,1 had voluntarily withdrawn the amount of instalment which he had deposited towards the purchase of the plot the agreement between him and respondent No,2 came to an end; consequently, he could not seek its enforcement. This contention is clearly without merits. From the letter which the respondent No,1 has written for withdrawing the amount of instalment it is clear that he had written it under the mistaken belief that the Government had cancelled the scheme, and that applications for fresh allotment under the new scheme would be invited. Quite obviously, he had been misinformed about the cancellation of the scheme and respondent No,2 did not care to apprise him of the true position. In the circumstances, the withdrawal of the amount already deposited by him towards the price of the plot could hardly be treated as a step taken by him to put an end to the agreement for the purchase of the plot. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.