Sufficient cause should be liberally construed.

A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.

1. Plaintiff in C.S.No.1643 of 1992 on the file of the High Court, Madras, who is the respondent in application No.3640 and 3641 of 1994 is the appellant herein.

2. In respect of an extent of 2141 sq.ft which is commercial vacant site adjacent to HIG block No. 1/1 at Rajaram Colony, Kodambakkam, Madras-24, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board conducted auction on 27. 1987. The appellant herein was the highest bidder having offered Rs.3,25,000 per ground and the area in question being less than a ground, proportionately the price was fixed at Rs.89. 927. As per the conditions of auction, the plaintiff paid 15% of the cost viz., 48,490 apart from EMD of Rs.5,000 which he paid earlier on 20.7.1987. On 111. 1987, the Housing Board passed an order of confirmation and balance of the plot cost payable was Rs.2,41,437. Admittedly, this confirmation letter was sent by the Housing Board to the appellant/plaintiff and he was called upon to pay the balance amount within the stipulated period of three months.

3. The appellant/plaintiff laid the suit contending that though he received the confirmation letter referred supra, only in February 1990 he received the lease-cum-sale agreement and till then he did not have the opportunity of knowing the exact terms and conditions of the auction sale in his favour. The appellant also raised a plea that he made repeated requests to the Board to grant him permission to make piecemeal payment of balance cost of plot and only by letter dated 14. 1990 he was informed that his request was rejected and that the appellant should pay the entire balance amount with interest before 30.4.1990. The appellant further contended that he paid a sum of Rs.50,000 through cheque dated 24. 1990 and requested the Board to grant a period of six months for making full payment. The time was extended only upto 15. 1990 and therefore the appellant by his letter dated 15. 1990 appealed to the respondent herein for extending the time. It is further stated in the plaint that the time was extended upto 30.6.1990 for making full payment and it was also made clear that if the appellant fail to make the payment as stipulated, the auction sale shall stand automatically cancelled.

4. Thefurther case of the appellant herein is that he received the letter only few days before 30.6.1990 and in fact he sent a cheque for Rs.50,000 on 7. 1990 and by letter dated 7. 1990 requested the Board to revise the earlier order and extend the time further for making full payment. The appellant herein has further averred in the plaint that notwithstanding his request, he received a letter dated 10. 1990 from the respondent that the auction sale in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled with effect from 30.6.1990 and his cheque dated 7. 1990 was also returned. It is the case of the appellant that the time is not essence of the contract and this is evident from the number of letters of the Board which only made it clear that the delayed payment would attract interest. It is also the case of the appellant herein that though initially a period of three months was tentatively fixed by the Board, this requirement was subsequently waived by receiving a sum of Rs.50,000 through cheque dated 24. 1990 nearly two years after the auction sale was over. The specific case of the appellant is that the contract was concluded on 111. 1987 and he would be entitled to pay the balance plot cost and perform his part of the contract within the statutory period of three years viz., before 111. 1990.

5. Against the order of cancellation received by him, on 10. 1990 the appellant herein filed an appeal before the Government and also obtained interim stay. This suit came to be filed by the appellant herein even during the pendency of the appeal before the Government. The prayer that is sought for by the appellant herein is one for specific performance of the contract for sale dated 111. 1987 by directing the defendant to execute and regist