' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---The petition is barred by one day. No application has been moved for condonation of delay.
2. Even on merits, the order of the High Court is unexceptionable as reflected in para.3 thereof which reads thus:-- "3. The agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No,1 on 29-7-1978 but no earth was excavated by the petitioner from this land and then a revised agreement was signed on 31-5-1982 and still for a long period the petitioner failed to excavate the earth and the respondent sold the property after 9 years of the amended agreement to respondents 2 to 4.
Sufficient long period was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not supposed to bound down the other party for indefinite period. Under the law, he could get the agreement specifically performed within a period of three years and even if no limitation period was fixed, the petitioner was supposed to act reasonably and get the agreement performed within the reasonable time.
The agreement also did not estop respondent No,1 from selling the property to anybody else. In these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to show that the balance of convenience lies in his favour. There will also be no irreparable loss to the petitioner as he has paid a specific amount to respondent No,1 and in case he fails to get possession of the land under the agreement, he will be entitled to get his amount back from respondent No,1 and in case he is able to prove before the trial Court that respondent No,1 is a party at fault then he, if so advised, may also be able to claim the damages."
3. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed being barred by time and leave declined.