is also not sustainable. 8. Shri Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the contrary, submitted that respondent No.1 has accrued a right in the lis on account of an Agreement for Sale dated 8th December 2009 entered into between it and the legal heirs of the original plaintiff. It is submitted that, since respondents No.2 and 3 were not prosecuting the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the subject suit, respondent No.1 was justified in filing such an application. It is submitted 7that, in any case, no interference is warranted in the concurrent orders of the trial court and the High Court. 9. We find that the approach of the trial court in entertaining the application filed at the behest of respondent No.1 is totally unsustainable in law. The claim of respondent No.1 is on an unregistered Agreement for Sale dated 8th December 2009. We do not wish to comment anything upon the said Agreement for Sale