R. C. LAHOTI ( 1 ) THIS order disposes of IA 8041/94, an application under Order 37 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiffs delivering summons for judgment to the defendants and IA No. 8739/94 under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) Civil Procedure Code filed by defendants seeking leave to defend. ( 2 ) THE suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the three plaintiffs against five defendants. According to the plaintiffs, they are all legal representatives being respectively the widow and two minor chidlren of late Brahm Parkash. who had passed away on 6. 7. 90. The defendants No. 1 to 4 and 6 are heirs of Late Meer Singh. The defendant No. 5 is the legal heir of late Surajsingh. The defendants No. 1 to 4 and 6 and late Suraj Singh were the owners of certain immovable properties. On 22. 2. 90 the owners of immovable properties entered into an agreement to sell the said property in favour of late Brahm Parkash. An amount of Rs. 3. 00 lacs was paid to the vendors by the vendee in part payment of sale consideration. There were usual terms incorporated in the agreement imposing reciprocal obligations on the parties to the agreement. On 6. 6. 91, there was a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 followed by a notification under Section 6 on 18th December, 1991. The property was acquired and acquisition award was made on 2nd April, 1993. The amount of compensation awarded has been received by the defendants. In view of the land having been acquired, frustrating the agreement to sell, the plaintiffs have sued for refund of the amount of Rs. 3 lacs with interest calculated @ 18% p. a. from the date of the agreement to sell till the date of realisation. Interest is claimed by way of damages on equitable grounds. ( 3 ) LEAVE to defend has been sought for mainly on two grounds: firstly, that the suit is barred by time; and secondly, that the plaintiffs had secured the signatures of the defendants for the purpose of obtaining severahmocs and income tax clearance certificates which the plaintiffs having failed in obtaining, there was breach of agreement on the part of the plaintiffs and they were not entitled to refund of the amount paid to the defendants under the agreement. It is note-worthy that the entering into the agreement, the vendors having received an amount of Rs. 3 lacs, the land having been acquired (alongwith the several dates of two notifications and the award), the defendants having received the amount of compensation awarded under the land acquisition award have not been denied. There is no contest on these averments made in the plaint. ( 4 ) AT the very outset, it may be stated that in so far as the claim for interest is concerned, the learned counsel for the plaintiff initially maintained that inclusion of such claim did not exclude the applicability of Order 37 to the suit. Still in view of the decision of this Court in Corporation Bank VS. Montana International and Ors. , 1995 (32) DRJ 458 , the learned counsel for the plaintiff has not pressed for the claim of interest and submitted that the claim for interest may be treated as abandoned and rest of the suit be heard and determined under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code. ( 5 ) AS noticed in the factual part of the petition the document on which the suit is based is executed by defendants 1 to 4 and 6 and late Suraj Singh. Suraj Singh has died before the institution of the suit and his heir has been joined as defendant No. 6. In Smt. Sarla Devi and Ors. VS. Shri Daya Ram and Ors. (S. No. 1518/94 decided on 22. 11. 94) I have taken a view that a suit against legal representatives of a deceased person who was party to a deed or instrument may not be entertained under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code. In taking that view, I have followed a Single Bench decision in Rajesh Steel Centre VS. Smt. Rashmi K. Agarwal and Ors. (1986 Mh. LJ 993 ). In taking that view, I have followed a Single Bench decision in Rajesh Steel Centre VS. Smt. Rashmi K. Agarwal and Ors. (1986 Mh. LJ 993 ). ( 6 ) A perusal of the decision in Rajesh Steel Centre s case (supra) shows that the reasoning which prevailed with the learned Judge is expressed in the following words : "if these legal heirs and representatives who have been made defendants are permitted to defend, the whole or any part of the claim, and a direction is given to give security within a specified time, it may be that they may not be able to comply with the order because no liquid assets or for that matter any assets of the deceased may have come to their hands during the time prescribed for giving the security, in which case their defence would be shut out and a decree would follow; such a situation must mean the very negation of the leave granted to defend, those who are not personally liable. The result against such defendants who are not personally liable, would be harsh, inequitable and unjust and such can never be the intention of he Legislature in enacting Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure". ( 7 ) THE facts of the present case project a different picture. All the defendants herein have themselves received the amount of compensation. Not only the receipt of compensation by the defendants has not been disputed by them, the plaintiff has filed certificates issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi (Land Acquisition Branch) showing disbursement of the amount of compensation to the present defendants. The present one is not a case where the amount was received by the deceased and liability is sought to be enforced against heirs who might not have received any liquid assets of the deceased. It cannot be said that the defendants do not have any liquid assets or for that matter any assets of the deceased not coming to their hands. Decisions in Rajesh Steel Centre s case (supra) and Smt. Sarla Devi and Ors. (supra) will not therefore apply to the case at hand. ( 8 ) THE suit is held to be maintainable under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code. ( 9 ) THE next question is whether leave to defend can be allowed to the defendants. Decisions in Rajesh Steel Centre s case (supra) and Smt. Sarla Devi and Ors. (supra) will not therefore apply to the case at hand. ( 8 ) THE suit is held to be maintainable under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code. ( 9 ) THE next question is whether leave to defend can be allowed to the defendants. I may deal with the grounds on which the leave to defend has been sought for. ( 10 ) THE agreement to sell was entered into on 22. 2. 90 on which date the amount of Rs. 3,00,000. 00 was paid to the vendors. The validity of the agreement was for a period of seven months expiring on 21st September, 1990 within which time the Vendors were to arrange for NOC/itcc from the competent authority and produce the same before the Vendee (the plaintiffs ). The limitation for filing the suit for specific performance would have expired on 21st September, 1993. Within this period the land was acquired. The land was rendered incapable of being sold. The limitation for claiming the refund of the amount of consideration paid would begin to run from 2nd April, 1993, the date on which the land would be deemed to have been acquired vesting the title in the State (See- Rayagonda Anna Patil VS. Jankibai and Anr. , AIR 1959 Bom. 468 DB ). The plea of limitation does not even prima facie stand. ( 11 ) THE plea that it was for the vendee to obtain NOC/itcc is contrary to the terms of the agreement and therefore cannot be sustained. ( 12 ) THE application seeking leave to defend does not disclose any grounds on which the leave can be allowed. The land which was agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs, having been acquired, the defendants must return out of the amount of compensation received by them the amount which was parted with by the vendee in part payment of the sale consideration and received by the Vendors. This is the law and this is the equity. ( 13 ) IA 8739/94 seeking leave to defend is rejected. ( 14 ) AS a consequence, the suit is decreed for recovery of Rs. 3 lacs with interest calculated @ 12% p. a. from the date of the suit i. e. 12. 7. 94 till realisation. The plaintiffs shall be entitled to the costs of the suit. ( 13 ) IA 8739/94 seeking leave to defend is rejected. ( 14 ) AS a consequence, the suit is decreed for recovery of Rs. 3 lacs with interest calculated @ 12% p. a. from the date of the suit i. e. 12. 7. 94 till realisation. The plaintiffs shall be entitled to the costs of the suit. Let a decree be drawn accordingly. ( 15 ) IA 8041/94 too stands disposed of. ( 16 ) IA 6923/94 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff is rendered infructuous. It be also treated as disposed of.