Specific performance of a contract cannot be denied due to mere pendency of administrative proceedings, which do not constitute legal impossibility of contract performance.

JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The appellants/plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26^th November, 1997 of the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, which reversed the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 19^th February, 1988 of the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Ambala Cantt., respectfully invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal (for short “RSA”). The appellants seek restoration of the decree rightly granted by the learned Trial Court and appropriate redress for the substantial miscarriage of justice occasioned thereby. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are vitiated by manifest perversity, serious errors of law, and a fundamentally flawed appreciation of the evidentiary record, resulting in grave injustice. The appellants therefore pray that this Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree and reinstate the lawful and well-reasoned decree of the learned Trial Court.

2. The sequence of events antecedent to, and culminating in, the present appeal may be succinctly set out as under -

“The suit was instituted seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 1 July 1979 in respect of Bungalow No. 43, The Mall, Ambala Cantonment, with a consequential direction to the defendants to execute and duly register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, founded upon both oral and documentary evidence on record.

The plaintiffs plead that they were tenants in occupation of the suit Bungalow prior to 1 July 1979, on which date the defendants executed an agreement to sell the property in their favour. The agreement stipulated that upon receipt of requisite permission from the Government of India through the Military Estate Officer, Ambala, the defendants would execute and procure registration of the sale deed within three months, the plaintiffs bearing all incidental expenses. Default by the plaintiffs would entail forfeiture of earnest money of Rs.5,000/-, whereas default by the defendants would entitle enforcement through court. It is further averred that another sum of Rs.2,000/- was paid by cheque on 1 July 1980 towards the sale consideration, leaving a balance of Rs.30,000/-. Sanction for sale was accorded on 11 April 1983. Despite statutory notices and the plaintiffs’ appearance before the Sub-Registrar with requisite funds, the defendants failed to perform. The plaintiffs assert continuous readiness and willingness, necessitating the present suit.”

3. Upon service of summons, the defendants appeared and filed their submissions as follows:-

“In the written statement, the defendants denied execution of the alleged agreement to sell and disputed the plaintiffs’ claim of tenancy, asserting instead that the plaintiffs were in occupation as sub-tenants against whom eviction proceedings had already been initiated. The defendants further categorically denied receipt of the alleged payment of Rs.2,000/- said to have been made by plaintiff No. 1 towards the sale consideration. As regards permission from the Military Estate Officer, it was pleaded that no sanction for sale was ever granted and that, by letter dated 9 June 1983, the Military Estate Officer merely required defendant No. 1 to furnish documents, if any, for consideration of sanction. It was further averred that despite reminders, no permission was accorded.”

4. The plaintiffs filed a replication, refuting the defendants’ contentions and reaffirming the allegations set forth in