As per case facts, the Appellant, owner of premises, initiated an eviction suit against the Respondent's father. During the suit, settlement agreements for sale were executed but later cancelled by ... the Appellant due to alleged non-compliance. The Respondents then filed a specific performance suit. The trial court initially dismissed this suit, but later partly allowed a review application to re-open it for earnest money consideration. Despite this partial review, the Respondents also filed an appeal against the original dismissal of their specific performance suit. The High Court allowed the Respondents' appeal. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in entertaining an appeal against a judgment that had been partly set aside and where the suit was re-opened, or if an appeal could be filed in anticipation. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court was incorrect in allowing the appeal, as the original decree no longer survived after the review order, and appeals cannot be filed anticipatorily. The Court emphasized that respondents cannot benefit from their own inconsistencies, thus allowing the Appellant's appeal.