GITA MITTAL, J.

1. The present appeal assails the order dated 24th July, 2017 passed by the ld. Single Judge dismissing I.A.No.1557/2007 (under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC), filed by the appellants herein (plaintiffs in the suit) seeking a judgment on admission in CS(OS)No.2046/2006, Daljit Singh & Anr. v. Hari Steel & General Industries Ltd & Ors. as the purchasers under an agreement to sell of an immovable property from the owners i.e. the respondent nos.1 to 6 (defendant nos. 1 to 6 in the suit).

The admissions attributed by the plaintiffs to the respondent nos.1 to 6 relate to the execution of the agreement to sell in question and to material terms contained therein.

2. We briefly set out hereafter the factual narration giving rise to the present appeal.

3. M/s Hari Steel & General Industries Ltd. (respondent no. 1 company) is stated to be the owner of the immovable property being a plot of land admeasuring 19074.69 sq. mtrs. bearing no.A-22, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi as well as construction thereon.

4. Its business was being carried out by the respondent nos. 2 to 6, family members and shareholders of the respondent no.1 under the name and style of the ‘South Delhi Toyota’.

5. So far as the dealership rights of Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. were concerned, they had been awarded to the respondent no.2 Shri Ram Dilawari, who had stated that he had assigned the same in favour of the respondent no.1 company.

6. An agreement to sell was arrived at with regard to the above property and business between the respondent nos.1 to 6 as the sellers on the one hand and the appellants as purchasers. The agreement concluded on 7th April, 2005 and came to be executed on 3rd May, 2005.

7. The agreement was for sale of land and building for a sum of Rs.49 Crores and for sale of goodwill of the running dealership of South Delhi Toyota for a sum of Rs.6.50 crores, the consideration thus totalling a sum of Rs.55.50 Crores.

8. Sh. Ram Dilawari (respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2) is stated to be Managing Director of the respondent no.1 Company, while his wife Smt. Swarna Dilawari, (respondent no.3/defendant no.3); three sons – Sh. Lalit Dilawari, (respondent no.4/defendant no.4); Sh. Kapil Dilawari, (respondent no.5/defendant no.5) and Sh. Ajay Dilawari, (respondent no.6/defendant no.6) stand arrayed in the plaint as shareholders of the company. The agreement to sell was signed by Sh. Ram Dilawari as the person responsible for and in-charge of the affairs of the defendant no.1 company and therefore, authorized to execute contracts and make promises on its behalf.

9. Additionally, Shri T.R. Arya, Director of the respondent no.1 company, has been impleaded as defendant no.7 in the suit (and respondent no.7 herein)

10. At the time of execution of the agreement to sell, the appellants paid a sum of Rs.1 crore in cash and Rs.1 crore by way of a cheque no.840711 dated 7th April, 2005 drawn on the ICICI Bank Ltd., Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi towards the sale consideration in favour of the respondent no.1.

11. It is noteworthy that so far as the difference between the valuation of other assets and liabilities of the running business was concerned, the parties agreed to consider the same separately. It was also agreed that a MOU shall be executed within a week thereof. The receipt of this amount and the agreement was acknowledged by the respondent no.2 - Shri Ram Dilawari on a hand written receipt dated 7th April, 2005.

12. The agreement between the parties was reduced into writing by way of a formal writing dated 3rd May, 2005 which records that Shri Ram Dilawari was authorized to execute the agreement, by a resolution dated 25th April, 2005 of the Board of Directors of the respondent no.1. The material terms in this agreement may, for expediency, be extracted here under :

“3. And whereas the vendor for its bon