BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.

(1) This first appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2007, passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No.1150 of 2003 thereby dismissing the said suit on the sole ground that the suit, being one for specific performance of a contract for construction of building, was not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 14(3)(c) of the Specific Relief Act.

(2) Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff has come up with the present appeal.

(3) The plaintiff/appellant filed the aforesaid suit initially claiming the following relief: "a) Leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. b) A decree for declaration that the alleged letter dated 19th May, 2003 purportedly issued on behalf of the defendant has no force in the eye of law and is not binding on the parties. c) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants and employees from encumbering the said premises No.243N, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, P.S.- Burtolla, Kolkata as described in the schedule below from parting with possession, inducting any person thereat or in any manner whatsoever. d) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from entering into an agreement with any third party in respect of the construction and/or development of the premises No.243N, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, P.S.-Burtolla, Kolkata as described in the schedule below. e) Ad-interim order of injunction in terms of prayers (c) and (d) above. f) Receiver. g) Commission. h) Costs. (i) Such other or further relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be found entitled." Subsequently by way of amendment, the plaintiff prayed for the following relief as the main relief in addition to the abovementioned relief original claimed: "(a)(i) Specific performance of the contract dated 14.04.1992 modified pursuant to the writing dated 09.04.2002 entered into by and between the parties herein."

(4) The case made out by the plaintiff in the amended plaint may be summed up thus:

(a) A proposal came to the plaintiff for development and promotion of the premises No.243N, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, P.S.-Burtolla, Kolkata, as described in the schedule of the plaint, of which the defendant was the owner. The plaintiff agreed to the said proposal and a written agreement dated 14th April, 1992 was entered into between the parties by which the defendant promised to handover the suit property free from all encumbrances to the plaintiff; but after the execution of the said agreement, it was found that the premises were not free from all encumbrances and in fact, huge municipal tax and electricity charges remained unpaid and at the same time, labour and industrial disputes, etc. were subsisting.

(b) The defendant, as per the said agreement, agreed to obtain clearance from KMDA, CIT and also Kolkata Municipal Corporation, but subsequently he expressed his inability to bear the costs, expenses and responsibility of the same and requested the plaintiff to undertake those jobs with the assurance that the defendant would pay the costs and expenses thereof to the plaintiff before the sanction of the building plan in respect of the said premises.

(c) Pursuant to such agreement, the plaintiff spent a sum of Rs.7,03,000/-in addition to the advance of Rs.4,00,000/- already paid at the time of execution of the agreement.

(d) The plaintiff spent a further amount of Rs.18,41,000/-towards the incidental and miscellaneous expenses for the development of the said site as indicated in paragraph 5 of the plaint.

(e) On the persuasion of the plaintiff, a plan in respect of the said premises was duly sanctioned by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the plaintiff made a bank-pay-order for Rs.3,36,387/- ready on 13th February, 2002 for the purpose of depositing the same wi