The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for parties to perform their obligations under the contract and the importance of timely raising objections in legal proceedings.

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.

1. Defendants-appellants are in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while decreeing the suit for possession by way of specific performance of three agreements to sell (two agreements to sell dated 14.11.2006 and third one dated 15.11.2006) between the same parties.

2. The execution of the agreements and receipt of earnest money are not in dispute between the parties. The only issue, which was contested before the courts below was that on the extended target date, i.e. 12.6.2007, (whereas as per agreement to sell, the target date was 15.5.2007), the plaintiff had not come present to execute the sale-deeds, whereas it is the case of the plaintiff that he visited the office of the Sub Registrar, where sale-deed was to be executed and registered but the defendants did not come forward to execute and register the sale deeds. However, both the parties got their respective affidavits attested from the office of Sub Registrar on 12.6.2007, that is the extended target date to prove their respective presence in the premises of the office of Sub Registrar.

3. As per the agreement to sell, the defendants-appellants were required to take two steps as per agreements to sell before execution of the sale deeds:- (i) they were required to repay the loan which was standing as a charge on the land in dispute and (ii) apply and obtain No Objection Certificate from the District Town Planner. It is not in dispute that the defendants-appellants did not take any of the steps to comply with these two requirements, which were agreed between the parties.

4. Before the first appellate court, the plaintiff moved an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC’ for short), pleading that the plaintiff is a money lender. The first appellate court rejected the application on the ground that the additional evidence now sought to be produced is beyond the pleadings.

5. Before the first appellate court, the defendants-appellants raised only one argument that the agreement to sell was not registered, although, possession was delivered under the agreement to sell. The first appellate court, after relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan and another Vs. Bijender Mann alias Vijender Mann and others, 2013 (2) CCC 188, dismissed the appeal.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance gone through the impugned judgments passed by the courts below as well as records.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiff has no declaration decree to the effect that the cancellation of agreement vide notice dated 2.7.2007 Ex.D3 was illegal and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. He has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of I.S.Sikandar (D) by LRs Vs. K.Subramani and others, 2013 (15) SCC 27. He has further submitted that the plaintiff has also prayed for possession, whereas in the agreement to sell, the possession was delivered. Therefore, he prays that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false. He has further submitted that the defendants had also attended the office of the Sub Registrar on 12.7.2007 and therefore, it must be inferred that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He has further submitted that there were three agreements to sell and therefore, one consolidated suit was not maintainable.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of the court to the fact that the defendants-appellants did not repay the amount of loan and the plaintiff made a request to the court for permission to pay the balance amount to the State Bank of India. He has drawn attention of the Court to the order dated 19.9.2007, wherein the court granted permission to the plaintiff to deposit the balance loan amount with the