Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Mr. Sunil Pandey and Mr. Apoorva Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents i.e., respondent Nos. 1 to 8.

2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 9 to 13. During pendency of appeal, respondent Nos. 6, 8 and 13 have died. They have been substituted by their legal heirs.

3. The instant second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2008 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 154 of 2005 (Smt. Ram Dulari and others v. Mohd. Ayyub Khan and others) by learned Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Lucknow setting aside the judgment and decree dated 6.10.2005 passed in Regular Suit No. 86 of 1990 (Ram Dulari and others v. Mohd. Ayyub Khan and others) by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lucknow by means of which the Trial Court had dismissed the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs for Specific Performance of Contract for sale.

4. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether the suit filed by the respondents on 20.3.1990 on the basis of an agreement for sale dated 7.1.1983 was within limitation?.

(ii) Whether in the absence of any pleadings and evidence on record that the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 possessed of and are capable of performing their part of contract, the lower appellate Court was justified in law in decreeing the suit, ignoring the law laid down in that behalf by this Hon’ble Court as well as Apex Court?

(iii) Whether there being no order of stay granted by District Judge, Gonda, staying filing of the suit by Tulsi Ram, the learned lower appellate Court was justified in law in granting benefit of Section 15 of the Limitation Act in decreeing the suit filed by him beyond three years?

(iv) Whether the learned lower appellate Court was justified in law in granting the decree for specific performance of contract, ignoring the provisions of Sections 12 and 15 of the Specific Relief Act?”

5. As per the given facts, a registered agreement for sale dated 7.1.1983 of plot measuring 8000 square feet was entered into between late Tulsi Ram (original plaintiff who is now represented by his legal heirs respondent Nos. 1 to 8) and one Farooq, Mohd. Matin (father of respondent Nos. 11 and 12) and Jameeluddin (respondent No. 13) - prospective purchasers as first party and Mohd. Ayyub Khan and Mohd. Shoaib Khan (respondent Nos. 9 and 10) - sellers as second party. A suit for specific performance of contract for sale was filed on 20.3.1990 by Tulsi Ram impleading Mohd. Ayyub Khan and Mohd. Shoaib Khan as defendants who were the owners of the plot in dispute. Respondent Nos. 11 to 13 and the present appellants were also impleaded as defendants.

6. Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 were the owners of the plot in dispute on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 25.7.1957. It was the case of the plaintiff that as per said agreement for sale a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the purchasers out of which, Rs. 20,000/- was paid by Tulsi Ram, Rs. 10,000/- was paid by Farooq, Rs. 10,000/- was paid by Mohd. Mateen and Rs. 10,000/- was paid by Jameeluddin. They had agreed to purchase definite portions of the plot in dispute by getting individual and separate sale-deeds executed in favour of each individual purchaser.

7. It was also the term of agreement for sale dated 7.1.1983 that the seller would obtain necessary permission from the competent authority under the Act (Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976) and the sale-deed would be executed within a month from grant of permission by the competent authority. The agreement stipulated that the seller would intimate the buyers and call upon them to execute the sale-deed