Certainly. Here are the relevant legal principles and paragraphs that address the rejection of a suit for specific performance due to escalation of prices and the hardship to the defendant:

1. The discretion to decree specific performance is guided by judicial principles and is exercised reasonably. An escalation in land prices after the filing of the suit cannot be the sole or decisive ground to deny specific performance, especially when the parties are ready to perform their obligations. The court must consider the totality of circumstances, including whether enforcement would cause undue hardship to the defendant. If the agreement was entered into in good faith and the defendant faces significant hardship or potential unfair advantage due to price escalation, the court may refuse specific performance on equitable grounds.

2. When the agreement was made long ago, and the property has appreciated significantly in value, it may be inequitable to grant specific performance, particularly if the delay in enforcement has caused hardship to the defendant. The court must balance the interests of both parties, and if enforcing the contract would result in substantial hardship or an unfair advantage to the plaintiff due to the increase in property value, it may be appropriate to refuse specific performance.

3. The law recognizes that while delay alone may not be sufficient to deny specific performance, a combination of delay, breach, and significant escalation in property prices, especially coupled with hardship to the defendant, can justify the exercise of discretion to refuse the decree. The courts have emphasized that the principle of fairness and equity requires careful consideration of these factors, and enforcement should not result in unjust enrichment or hardship.

4. The courts have also noted that in cases where the property value has increased substantially during the pendency of litigation, granting specific performance could be inequitable unless appropriate conditions, such as additional compensation, are imposed. If the delay has been unreasonable and the escalation in price is substantial, the court may opt for alternative remedies like damages or compensation rather than specific performance.

In summary, the courts consider the increase in property prices and the hardship to the defendant as important factors in exercising their discretion in suits for specific performance. When enforcement would cause undue hardship or result in unfair advantage to the plaintiff due to significant escalation in land value, the court may refuse to decree specific performance, emphasizing the principles of equity and justice.