JUDGMENT :

L. S. PIRZADA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.S.P. Majmudar appearing for the appellants and learned advocate Mr.Hriday Buch appearing for learned advocate Mr.Abhishek M. Mehta for the respondent Nos.1 to 6.

2. The present appeal, preferred by the appellants – original plaintiffs under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the “Code”), is directed against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28.11.2014 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh.42 in Special Civil Suit No.128 of 2016 whereby, while allowing the application below Exh.42 preferred under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the learned trial Court has rejected the plaint of the plaintiffs.

3. For the sake of brevity, the parties herein are referred to as per their original status in the suit.

4. Factual matrix leading to the filing of the present appeal are that Special Civil Suit No.128 of 2016 has been filed by the original plaintiffs against the defendants for specific performance of an agreement to sale dated 08.02.2001 and also for cancellation of the sale deed dated 31.08.2015 executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 6 in favour of the defendant No.7.

5. In nutshell, the case of the original plaintiffs in the plaint was that the original defendant Nos.1 to 6 were the owners and occupiers of the land bearing Revenue Survey No.661, Final Plot No.119, admeasuring 3187 sq.mtrs. (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”) situated at Village: Gotri. As defendant Nos.1 to 6 wanted to sell the suit land, they have contacted the plaintiffs and thereafter, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6 have entered into an agreement to sale and the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.20/- per sq.ft. and the said agreement to sale was executed on 08.02.2001, which was registered before the Notary on 13.02.2001. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.6,85,850/- and the plaintiffs have paid an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- by way of an earnest money by cheque. Subsequently, the defendant Nos.1 to 6 have also executed the development agreement with the plaintiffs on 13.02.2001 and given possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs and receipt thereof was issued by the defendant Nos.1 to 6 on 13.02.2001.

5.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that as per the conditions of the agreement to sale, the remaining amount of the sale consideration was to be paid within a period of six months from the date of getting the Title Clearance Certificate and the other permissions before the sale and thereafter, within a period of three months, sale deed was required to be executed. Thus, the total amount of Rs.2,90,000/- i.e. almost 40% of the sale consideration was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants and thereafter, the payment has been made by the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the defendant Nos.1 to 6 have entered into agreement to sale with the third party and to get the said agreement to sale cancelled, the plaintiffs have paid the amount to the third party and they have also paid more amount than the sale consideration to the defendant Nos.1 to 6 for executing the sale deed.

5.2. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that thereafter, public notices have been issued in the newspaper by respondent Nos.1 to 6 on 17.12.2011, 02.07.2013 and 15.11.2014 for title through an advocate. The plaintiffs have raised objections against the said public notices. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 have not given any information regarding any permission obtained by them for executing the sale deed and thereafter, the defendant Nos.1 to 6 have obtained the permission for change of conditions on 01.08.2015 and the said fact was not conveyed to the plaintiffs and on 03.02.2016, when the plaintiffs had taken out the copies of the revenue records, it came to the notice of the plaintiffs that the defendant Nos.1 to 6 have executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant No.7 on 31.08.2015 and, therefore, the suit being Special Civil Suit No.128 of 2016 has been filed with