The central legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary nature of granting specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, which requires the court to consider various circumstances, including unfair advantage to the plaintiff and inequitable conduct by the parties.

( 1 ) THIS is defendants second appeal. It arises out of original suit No. 287 of 1977 filed by Sher Singh, respondent for specific performance of an agreement dated 20-11-1973 with regard to a piece of land area 9 Biswa pukkha of the Khasra no. 581 in village Bhoken after getting Rs. 500/- from the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE plaint was instituted on the pleas iner alia that the defendants are bhumidhar of Khasra No. 581 area 9 biswa situate in village Bhoken of which the plaintiff had been in possession, but in revenue record the names of defendants were there. The defendants on 20-11 -1973 agreed to sell the aforesaid piece of land for a sum of Rs. 3. 000/- out of which Rs. 2. 500/- was paid and it was received by the defendants towards part payment of the amount. Remaining Rs. 500/- was to be paid at a time of the execution of the sale deed. The defendants have failed to execute the sale deed within time stipulated in the agreement and the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, filed a suit after giving registered notice dated 5-5-1977. The defendants having failed to execute the sale deed, hence the suit, for specific performance of contract to sell.

( 3 ) THE defendants contested the suit by filing a joint written statement and they sub stantially denied the plaint allegation. The main defence was that the plaintiff and one adia conspired for usuring the disputed land. The defendants were away in the city in connection with their employment, permitted the plaintiff who is related to them to look after land in question. The plaintiff informed the defendant that Adia, a harijan will get the land as certain laws are giving into existence in favour of harijans. To save the land on the advice of the plaintiff the defendant executed an agreement to sell the land to him with the understanding that the agreement to sell shall be a showy agreement. The receipt of rs. 2. 500/- by the defendant was denied. Adia did file an application before S. D. O. , ghaziabad for declaration of his right in the disputed land which was dismissed and the appeal is pending before the Commissioner, meerut. The disputed land is not worth less than Rs. 15. 000/- and no question to sell it at a throw away price of Rs. 3. 000/- arises.

( 4 ) IN the trial Court five issues were framed. On material issues the trial court found that the defendants have executed an agreement, as stated by the plaintiff after obtaining Rs. 2. 500/ -. There was no fraud or collusion and the plaintiff has proved his case and suit was decreed on 24-1-1978. The said decree has been confirmed in Civil Appeal no. 118 of 1978 by the Addl. Civil Judge, ghaziabad by judgment dated 7-3-1979. Before the first appellate Court an argument was raised that on 12-1-1978 the evidence of defendants was closed. The plaintiff in the list of witnesses mentioned the name of scribe as one of the witnesses to be examined by him. The plaintiff without examining scribe discharged him and thereafter the evidence of defendants was recorded on 12-1-1978 and the evidence was also closed on that day. The Court below rejected an argument of the defendant that no proper opportunity was given to them to examine the scribe. It appears that subsequently an application after close of the evidence of the parties, was filed by the defendants for permission to examine the scribe. The application was rejected by the trial Court, the Court below also upheld the rejection of the said application by the judgment under appeal. The appellate Court also confirmed the finding of the trial Court with regard to the payment of Rs. 2,500/- to the defendant.

( 5 ) THIS appeal was admitted and the grounds Nos. 1, 3 and 13 were considered as substantial question of law, at the time of admission. When the appeal came up for final hearing an application dated 23-1-2004 being Civil Misc. Application No. 166743 of 2004 was filed seeking permission to amend the memorandum of appeal by a