( 1 ) THE plaintiff appellants preferred this C. M. A. against an order of the subordinate Judge, Guntur, returning the plaint in C. F. R. No. 11515 of 91 (Unnumbered Original Suit) with a direction to deposit the balance sale consideration or purposes of entertaining the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale.

( 2 ) THE brief facts relevant for the present purpose are: On 10-12-1990 the defendant respondent executed an agreement of sale in respect of plaint a schedule properties in favour of the plaintiffs for a total consideration of rs. 6,40,000/- and received on the very same day an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. 25,000/- in cash and the balance of Rs. 25. 000/- through cheque) towards advance purchase money agreeing to execute the regular sale-deed in the names of the plaintiffs or their nominees. Subsequently, the plaintiffs also paid Rs. 90,000/- on 22-12-90 and Rs. 20,000/- on 20-4- 91. They also made arrangements for payment of the balance through the Life Insurance corporation of India and that in fact the LIC had sanctioned a loan of rs. 3,10,000/- to the 1st plaintiff and Rs. 1,70,000/- to the 2nd plaintiff. Inasmuch as the defendant was not co-operating with the plaintiffs in the execution of the regular sale-deed, they were forced to issue a registered notice on 12-7- 91 and ultimately file the present suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale.

( 3 ) THE plaint was filed with the requisite stamps representing Court-fee and after complying with the other formalities. However, the Court below through the orders under appeal returned the plaint with a direction to the plaintiffs to deposit the balance of sale-consideration. Hence this miscellaneous appeal assailing the said order.

( 4 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs is that the Court below has no jurisdiction to direct deposit of the balance sale-consideration for purposes of registering the plaint and entertaining the suit. He submitted that to establish bona fides and readiness to perform their part of the contract, it is not necessary that the plaintiffs should deposit the balance of sale-consideration. He also submitted that Section 16 (c) of the specific Relief Act does not contemplate depositing of the balance sale-consideration for purposes of entertaining the suit. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Court below has ample power to direct depositing the balance sale-consideration, more so, when it is heavy running in lakhs, and therefore no interference of this Court is called for. He also contended that the order is only returning the plaint, against which no appeal lies under Order 43. On this count, according to the learned counsel, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) IN view of these contentions, the main question for consideration is, whether the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to return the plaint with a direction to deposit the balance of sale-consideration for purposes of entertaining the suit filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale.

( 6 ) SECTION 26 of the Civil Procedure Code dealing with the institution of suits prescribes that every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed. Order VII, Rule 1 speaks of the particulars a plaint is to contain. Rule 3 deals with suits subject-matter of which is immoveable property. It states: "where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property -sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. Rule 5 prescribes that the plaint shall show that the defendant is or claims to be interested in the subject-matter, and that he is liable to be called upon to answer the plaintiff s demand. Rule 10 refers to the Return