IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Principle of Lis Pendens would apply even in suit for specific performance of contract.
(2) Court is empowered to grant extension of time for payment of deficit court-fee.

Birendra Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short the “C.P.C.) is against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned courts below in a suit for specific performance of contract to execute and register sale deed in respect of immovable property.

3. On 26.11.1987, this Court admitted the appeal for hearing on following substantial questions of law:—

(i) Whether due to absence of plea of willingness in the plaint as well as evidence of plaintiff, the suit is bound to fail?

(ii) Whether the judgments of the Courts below are vitiated in law due to lack of recording a finding on the point of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract?

(iii) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated in law due to absolute non-consideration of the oral evidence of the defendants-appellants, who are twelve in number and those evidences are vital for reaching at a correct conclusion?

During hearing of this appeal, one more question was raised.

(iv) Whether the courts below were consistent with the law that principle of lis pendens would apply against the claim of the appellant?

4. Original plaintiff Jamadar Rai brought Title Suit No. 622 of 1974 against sole defendant Sadique Mian pleading therein that the suit property mentioned in the plaint was owned and possessed by the sole defendant Sadique Mian. Sadique Mian agreed to sale the suit property measuring 17 Kathas and 4 Dhurs in favour of the plaintiff on total consideration money of Rs.6,500/- (six thousand five hundred). Out of the total consideration money, Rs.4,000/- (four thousand) of the plaintiff was already due with Sadique Mian in pursuance of a hand note of borrowing executed by Sadique Mian in favour of the plaintiff vide Ext. 3. Rs.700/- (seven hundred) was due against mortgage by Sadique Mian in respect of a portion of the suit land in favour of one Kailash Rai. The remaining amount of Rs.1,800/- (one thousand eight hundred) was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The entire terms and conditions was incorporated in an agreement to sale between the parties dated 06.03.1973 at Ext. G. It is worth to mention that Ext. G is missing from the record and the parties agreed for hearing of this appeal in absence of Ext. G. According to the plaintiff, in pursuance of the agreement, a sale deed was drafted on stamp paper on 14.07.1973 at the Registry Office. One Murli Prasad had scribed the deed on the dictate of Sadique Mian. Thereafter, the deed was read over to Sadique Mian and Sadique Mian put his L.T.I in presence of witnesses Ramawatar Singh and Awadh Tiwary already examined in the suit. Before putting his L.T.I., Sadique Mian received Rs.1,500/- (one thousand five hundred) out of the dues of Rs.1,800/- (one thousand eight hundred) of the consideration money but it was too late, hence, the document could not be presented for registration before the Registrar. The remaining amount of Rs.300/- (three hundred) was to be paid at the time of return of the receipt of the sale deed by Sadique Mian to the plaintiff. However, Sadique Mian insisted for payment of the rest amount of Rs.300/- (three hundred) pressing his urgent need and the plaintiff paid the said amount to Sadique Mian and kept the original sale deed with himself. However, Sadique Mian did not turn up ever for admission of execution before the Registrar and registration of the document which led to the filing of the suit.

5. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff came to know that Sadique Mian had sold away the suit land through registered sale deed to one Janak Rai on 26.09.1974 vide Ext. C. Thereafter, Janak Rai was impleaded as defendant no. 2. The plaintiff amended the plaint and challenged the sale deed by Sadique Mian in favour of Janak Rai as collusive, forged and fabricated document and non-operative.

6. Sadique Mian filed