The sufficiency of pleadings in a suit for specific performance and the admissibility of evidence in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and the Specific Relief Act.

JUDGMENT :

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. Admit. Ms. Paranjape, learned counsel waives service for the respondent. By consent of parties, the appeal is heard finally.

2. By this appeal, the appellants (original plaintiffs) have impugned the order dated 10th April, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Judge has redacted material portion of the examination in chief of the appellants’ witness no. 1. (Hereinafter the parties are referred to as per their original status in the plaint).

3. The respondent was the original defendant before the Trial Court. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the appeal are as under.

4. On 24th April, 1986, the plaintiffs filed a suit bearing No. 894 of 1986 in this Court inter-alia praying for specific performance of the Agreement for Sale dated 8th June, 1979. It is the case of the plaintiffs that during the pendency of the suit on 24th August, 1987 another Agreement for Sale was executed between the plaintiff no. 1 and Kedia Construction Company Limited. The plaintiffs accordingly filed a Chamber Summons inter-alia praying for impleadment of the said Kedia Construction Company Limited as a party (defendant) to the said suit. On 16th April, 2014, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said chamber summons filed by the plaintiffs for impleadment of the said Kedia Construction Company Limited. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 16th April, 2014, the defendant filed an appeal bearing Appeal No. 258 of 2014. By an order dated 22nd August, 2014, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Appeal No. 258 of 2014 filed by the defendant.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22nd August, 2014, defendant herein preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 614 of 2015 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By an order dated 24th October, 2014, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the orders passed by this Court allowing the amendment to the plaint and the impleadment of the said Kedia Construction Company Limited.

6. The defendant filed the written statement to the suit filed by the plaintiffs. On 14th January, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an affidavit of evidence of their witness no. 1 in lieu of examination in chief of Mr. J.P. Kedia along with compilation of documents. On 10th April, 2019, learned Single Judge of this Court on oral objection of the counsel for the defendant redacted the portions of the affidavit in lieu of examination filed by witness no. 1 of the plaintiffs at the stage of considering admissibility of the documents. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10th April, 2019, the plaintiffs preferred this appeal.

7. Dr. Saraf, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs invited our attention to the averments made by the plaintiffs in the plaint and more particularly in paragraph 11 stating that in part performance of the said agreement, the plaintiffs had paid an aggregate amount of Rs. 4,52,778/- being 25% of the purchase price under the said agreement for sale. The plaintiffs averred that under the said agreement for sale, they have duly performed and carried out their part of the agreement for sale. The plaintiffs averred that they were always ready and willing and are ready and willing to perform and carry out their part of performance of the agreement. It is averred by the plaintiffs that the delay in completion was caused by the defendant itself and due to the pendency of the writ petition and the injunction order dated 14th October, 1980 passed therein.

8. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs invited our attention towards the deposition of the plaintiffs in paragraphs 6 to 14 made in the affidavit in lieu of the examination in chief filed by the witness no. 1. He submits that the plaintiffs had always been and continued to be ready and willing to perform their part of the obligation under the said agreement. The paragraphs of the affidavit that sought to be struck off/redacted by a learned Single Judge pertain to the sister concern of t