JUDGMENT

Ajaib Singh J:

This was an application for an order that a private caveat entered by the respondent against land belonging to the applicants under Grant No. 2457 Lot 593 in the Mukim of Ampangan be forthwith removed on the ground that the respondent had no interest in the land after he had failed to complete the purchase of the said land under an agreement for sale dated 28 June 1974. The applicants also claimed damages for loss suffered by them as a result of the wrongful lodgment of the caveat and the failure on the part of the respondent to withdraw it after 28 September 1974 which was the date for the completion of the sale of the land.

The application was by originating motion supported by a joint affidavit of the applicants dated 7 August 1975. In their affidavit the applicants stated that they were co-owners of the land and they had entered into a written agreement with the respondent on 28 June 1974 whereby the respondent was to purchase the land at the price of $827,656.25. Time was stated to be the essence of the contract and the agreement provided that the purchase should be completed on or before 28 September 1974. The respondent however failed to complete the purchase of the land by that date in accordance with the written agreement whereupon the applicants forfeited the sum of $97,765.62 which was paid by the respondent as a deposit and in part payment of the purchase price. The applicants also forfeited a further sum of $30,000 which was paid by the respondent to the applicants towards the purchase price pursuant to a clause in the agreement. On 9 November 1974 the applicants were served with a notice by the Registrar of Titles under s. 324(3) of the National Land Code stating that a private caveat expressed to bind their land had been entered on the application of the respondent. On 6 January 1975 the applicants applied to the Registrar for the removal of the caveat under s. 326(1) of the Code but the Registrar's notice of intended removal of the caveat could not be served upon the respondent as the respondent had moved to another place. The notice could not also be served by registered post and the envelope containing the notice was returned undelivered to the Registrar by the Postal Department with the remark that it was unclaimed. Hence the present application by the applicants for the removal of the caveat under s. 327(1) of the National Land Code. In their joint affidavit the applicants referred to a letter dated 25 October 1974 addressed to the applicants' previous solicitors by the then solicitors of the respondent wherein it was stated inter alia that the applicants and the respondent had orally agreed to an extension of two months beyond 28 September 1974 for the completion of the purchase of the land and that the respondent would complete the purchase on or before the agreed extended date of 28 November 1974. The applicants in their affidavit denied that they had ever agreed to the extension of two months beyond 28 September 1974 for the completion of the purchase or to any extension at all. In any event they said that the respondent made no attempt to complete the purchase at any time.

When the notice of motion came up for hearing before me I noticed that it was not served upon the respondent but was made ex parte. I did not think it proper in the circumstances of this case to make any order on the application in the absence of the respondent and I directed that the notice of motion be served upon him which was eventually done by way of substituted service. The respondent then filed a lengthy affidavit in reply but not everything that was stated therein was relevant or worthy of consideration. In his affidavit the respondent stated that the agreement for sale dated 28 June 1974 was not the final or the first written agreement concerning the land and he referred to an earlier agreement dated 16 December 1973 a copy of which was exhibited in the affidavit. The respondent stated that this ear