The absence of a specific provision for enforcement in the agreement rendered the suit for specific performance not maintainable. The plaintiffs' failure to prove their readiness and willingness to execute the agreement by the stipulated date barred them from seeking specific performance.

Amol Rattan Singh, J.

This appeal has been filed by the defendant in a suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, seeking possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of an agreement entered into by the parties on 30.07.2002, for the purchase/sale of land measuring 22 kanals 5½ marlas, owned by the appellant-defendant (hereinafter to be referred to as the appellant) in village Mangli Nichi, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. As per the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiffs), the agreement was executed on the aforesaid date, with the sale consideration settled at Rs.16,00,000/- per acre, of which Rs.5,66,000/- were received by the appellant as earnest money from the plaintiffs on the date of the agreement itself. The sale deed was to be executed and registered by 30.06.2003, i.e. 11 months later. It was contended that the plaintiffs always remained ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and always had the consideration money available with them. It was further contended that the appellant had agreed to get the land demarcated before the execution and registration of the sale deed. However, the appellant did not get the land demarcated, nor in fact, did he move any application before the revenue authorities to get the needful done. Instead, it was contended, that he tried to put the blame upon the plaintiffs by sending a “false notice dated 24.07.2003”, through his counsel. The plaintiffs are stated to have replied to the said notice on 01.08.2003; however, it was contended that the defendant was legally bound to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the plaintiffs, who had not committed any breach of the agreement. When the plaintiffs came to know that the appellant is looking to sell the land to other people, they again made a request to him for fulfillment of the agreement but he having refused to do so, the suit was filed on 24.12.2003.

2. In the written statement filed by the appellant-defendant, upon notice being issued to him, he took preliminary objections with regard to maintainability etc., including one with regard to non-compliance of order VII Rule 1(j) of the CPC. It was further stated that there was no condition settled between the parties with regard to getting the agreement enforced through a Court of law. Yet further, it was contended that the appellant had got the suit land demarcated before the date fixed for execution and registration of the sale deed, i.e. 30.06.2003, and for the said purpose, he had moved an application for demarcation before the Tehsildar, Ludhiana (East) on 23.06.2003. It was further contended that one Gurmail Singh, a retired Kanungo, was appointed as the Local Commissioner for getting the demarcation done, which was done on 27.06.2003, after sending notices to the concerned parties on 24.06.2003, through the Halqa Patwari. In fact, it was contended that notice had also been sent to a marginal witness to the agreement, Balwant Singh, who was known to the plaintiffs and who had acknowledged receipt on the notice and was present at the time of demarcation and had also signed the demarcation report on 27.06.2003. Yet further, the appellant in his written statement stated that he had appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana, on 30.06.2003 and had got his presence marked there by moving an application for the purpose. He had also remained present before the Sub-Registrar the whole day and then got an affidavit attested in that regard from the Executive Magistrate. It was, thus, contended that it was the plaintiffs who were the defaulting party, as they did not come forward for the registration of the sale deed by paying the full sale consideration. Consequently, the agreement stood cancelled, for which, a legal notice had also been sent by the counsel for the appellant, to the plaintiffs, on 24.07.2003, after which the appellant, being an NRI, had left for Canada on 27.07.2003, but on