1. The plaintiff, being unsuccessful in O.S.No.313 of 1982 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in obtaining the decree for specific performance of the agreement, dated 21-08-1977, has preferred the appeal assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 28-01-1993. The plaint schedule property comprises of 4188 Sq.Yds., forming part of the premises Nos.1-1-79/C, 1-1-79/B and 1-1-79/A/1, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. The plaintiff, which is a private limited company, in its plaint pleaded that on 21-08-1977 it agreed to purchase the suit schedule property from the defendants No.1 to 3 for a consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- and paid Rs.40,000/-towards advance and the sale agreement was reduced into writing. As per the terms of the sale agreement, the plaintiff was entitled to apply for permission so as to construct a theatre in the suit schedule property. It is averred that originally nine months time was agreed for obtaining such permission, but the time was extended up to 21-10-1978 by mutual agreement. When the plaintiff applied for permission, the concerned authorities refused to grant the same and then the plaintiff filed W.P.No.2028 of 1980 before the High Court, which was pending. It is further averred that the plaintiff addressed several letters to the defendants No.1 to 3 expressing its readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration. The defendants replied stating that the suit schedule property was agreed to be sold for the purpose of constructing a theatre and since the permission was refused, the agreement stood cancelled. Such an interpretation of the terms of the agreement is not correct. The clause providing for obtaining the permission for the benefit of the plaintiff and it is for the plaintiff to waive such clause. The time is not the essence of contract for the fulfilment of that clause. It was further pleaded that in fact, defendants No.1 to 3 extended the time till 24-10-1978 by their letter, dated 24-07-1978. That the plaintiff addressed several letters to the defendants No.1 to 3 calling upon them to obtain necessary permission from the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act but they failed to do so. The plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform its part of the contract but the defendants No.1 to 3 refused to perform their part of the contract. It was also pleaded that after filing of the suit, the plaintiff came to know that a portion of the suit schedule property consisting of 2,000 Sq.Yds., was sold to the 4th defendant. So, the 4th defendant was also impleaded and the decree that might be passed in favour of the plaintiff would bind on her also. In fact, the 4th defendant had the prior notice of the suit agreement. Hence, the suit.

3. Defendants No.1 to 3 filed their written statement contending that the plaintiff has not complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement, that the claim is time barred and the suit for specific performance is untenable. The plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and therefore the discretionary power of equitable relief of specific performance cannot be granted. It was also further pleaded that it was agreed that the sale transaction would be completed only when the authority permits the plaintiff to construct a theatre and for that purpose six months time was initially stipulated and the plaintiff was to obtain such permission. However, three months time was extended for obtaining such permission. It was agreed and understood that if the permission was not obtained within the extended time, there would not be any further extension of time. Since, the permission was not given even during the extended period, the agreement stood cancelled. It was however agreed for refund of the advance without interest. It was also agreed that the plaintiff should inform the defendants about the obtaining of the permission so that they could apply to the Urban Ceiling Authorities see