ORDER :

P.T. Asha, J.

1. The issue which is called into question in the above application is:

"Can the Court allow the plaintiff to move an application under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for receiving additional documents after the suit is posted for arguments?"

Case of the plaintiff:

2. The Applicant herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, has filed the suit C.S.No.668 of 2004 for the following relief:

"(a) To specifically enforce the performance of the Contract as per the Offer letters dated 12.11.1980 and 19.09.1983 and the Acceptance letters dated 24.11.1980 and 19.04.1984 and execute and register the 99 years Sale-cum-Lease Deed in favour of the plaintiff insofar as the schedule property is concerned.

(b) To issue permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men, agents, servants or subordinates or any other persons from in any way interfering or disturbing, alienating, by way of mortgage, sale or lease or demand rent or do any other act in deviation to the terms of the offer letters dated 12.11.1980 and 19.09.1983 and Acceptance letters dated 24.11.1980 and 19.04.1984 in the property more fully described in the schedule which is under the possession and custody of the plaintiff and for the cost of the suit."

3. The applicant in their Plaint would submit that the respondent herein had made an Offer to sell an extent of 6521 sq. ft. on the ground floor, 6616 sq. ft. on the first floor and 200 sq. ft. in the basement situated on the ground, first floor and basement of the building known as Spencer Towers-I at No.770A, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. The applicant would submit that they had paid to the respondent a sum of Rs. 51,39,538.20p which was the basic cost inclusive of additional interest and escalation cost for the purchase of the property for their use for 99 years. In addition to this, they had also agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/-per annum as annual lease amount for 99 years.

4. It is the case of the applicant that pursuant to the above Offer, they had taken possession of the ground and first floor for running their Banking business. The Letter of Offer dated 12.11.1980 addressed to the Chairman and the General Manager of the applicant/Bank is for the ground and first floor and the Letter of Offer dated 19.09.1983 is for the basement area. This Offer was accepted by the applicant on 24.11.1980 for the ground and first floor and on 19.04.1984 for the basement area.

5. The applicant would further contend that despite their readiness and willingness to pay the balance amount, the respondent herein was not coming forward to execute the Sale-cum-Lease Deed. They would further contend that though the Sale Deed was not executed in their favour by the respondent/ Company which was originally known as Spencer Estates Limited and thereafter, amalgamated as M/s. Music World Entertainment Limited, they continued to be in possession of the entire extent which was given to them pursuant to the Letters dated 12.11.1980 and 24.11.1980. The applicant would submit that after the respondent herein had taken over, they had instituted proceedings under the Rent Control Act for fixation of fair rent which was in total violation of the terms agreed upon by themselves and the applicant. Therefore, the applicant was left with no other alternative but to file a suit for Specific Performance for enforcing the terms of the Contract as per the Letters of Offer dated 12.11.1980 and the Letters of Acceptance dated 24.11.1980 and 19.04.1984. Along with the Plaint, the plaintiff had filed 20 documents which included the two Offer Letters dated 12.11.1980 written by the respondent to the applicant and the reply of the applicant dated 24.11.1980 and 19.04.1984 besides other documents.

6. The respondents herein had resisted the suit inter alia raising the following main defenses:

(a) The suit is barred by limitation.

(b) There was no concluded contract.

(c) Since the parties had not reached a consensus there w