T L MUDDUKRISHANA Vs. LALITHA RAMCHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, made on 29-5-1996 in CRP No. 2246/93.

(3.) The admitted facts are that the appellants and the respondent entered into an agreement on March 16, 1989 for sale of plot of land bearing No. 114/8 situated at Peenya Industrial Suburb II Stage, Peenya Village, Bangalore for a consideration of Rs. 64 lakhs. The date for the performance of the contract was fixed as May 28, 1989. The appellants issued notice on October 2, 1989 calling upon the respondent to comply with the conditions mentioned under the agreement, namely, to obtain Income-tax clearance certificate and from the Urban Ceiling Authority permitting the respondent to alienate the property to the appellants. The respondent had issued a notice on November 6, 1989 repudiating the contract though the execution thereof was admitted. The appellants then filed a suit for mandatory injunction on April 21, 1992 directing the respondent to comply with the requirements as mentioned in the agreement. While the suit was pending, the appellants made an application on November 5, 1992 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC for amending the plaint and seeking specific performance of the contract. The said application was rejected by the trial Court and the rejection was affirmed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.