The main legal point established in the judgment is that failure to make full payment under a contract disentitles the party to specific performance, and the party may be entitled to a refund of the advance payment.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has instituted this suit, seeking a decree of specific performance of agreement/order dated 12. 6. 1973 /9. 8. 1973, directing the defendants to deliver 30/8 ton class-3 crane and 15 ton class-3 crane, after accepting the sum of Rs. 6,85,000. 00 (Rs. six lacs eighty five thousand only), being the balance of price agreed. In the alternative, the plaintiff prays for a decree to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the sum of Rs. 8,02,925. 00 (Rs. eight lacs two thousand nine hundred twenty five only) together with pendent lite interest at 18% or such rate as the Court deems fit. The sum of Rs. 8,02,925. 00 includes : (i) Rs. 5,50,000. 00 being the difference in market price of the cranes ordered and the agreed price between the parties, (ii) Rs. 50,000. 00 on account of loss/damage to the plaintiff by non-delivery, (iii) Rs. 1,25,000. 00 being advance amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, and (iv) Rs. 77,925. 00 interest @ 18% p. a. on the above amount of Rs. 1,25,000. 00 till the date of filing of the suit.

( 2 ) DURING the course of proceeding in the suit, amendment of plaint was permitted. An application for filing of additional documents under Order XIII Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code of defendant was rejected. An application for amendment of written statement, seeking to introduce a plea based on a document, production of which had been disallowed under Order XIII Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, was also dismissed.

( 3 ) THE following issues were framed based on the pleadings of the parties: (1) Whether the plaintiff is a duly incorporated company and the plaint has been signed and verified and the suit in stituted by a duly authorised person? - OPP (2) Whether the suit has been instituted so far as defendant No. 2 is concerned against a wrong person? OPD (3) Whether the plaintiff has committed any breach of the contract? If so, its effect? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff has made the payment towards advance in instalments as per the mutual concurrence of me parties in furtherance of the contracts for the purchase of cranes? OPP (5) Whether the defendants did not allow inspection of the working of the cranes which was a condition precedent for taking delivery of the cranes? If so, what is its effect? OPP (6) Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform its part of the contract? OPP (7) What amount of damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover? opp (8) Whether the suit so far as specific performance of the agreement is concerned is maintainable? OPP (9) Whether the defendants have suffered any damages on account of me default of the plaintiff in the performance of its part of the contract and are entitled to adjust their amount against the plaintiff s claim? If so, in what amount? OPD (10) Whether the claim referred to in issue No. 9 can be maintained without payment of requisite Court-fee? (11) Is the plaintiff entitled to any interest? If so, in what amount? OPP (12) Whether or not the suit is within time? OPP (13) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit? opd (14) Relief.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff s case is that despite substantial amounts having been paid to the defendants by way of advance, defendants committed breach of the contract by not delivering the cranes ordered and wrongfully cancelled the order. The defendants did this despite plaintiff having agreed to an increase in price, to which the defendants were not entitled. The case of the defendants on the other hand is that although plaintiff failed to make the payment of advance as agreed, the defendants duly offered the manufactured cranes for inspection and called upon the plaintiff to make the balance payment of purchase price. The plaintiff failed to do on account of financial problems. The manufactured cranes could not on account of space constraints be kept in assembled condition and were got dismantled. Defendants per force cancelled the or