Manmohan Sarin, J. (Oral ). ( 1 ) BY this common Order, I shall be disposing of IA. 5547/98 in Suit No. 1528/95 and IA. 5548/98 in Suit No. 1529/95, moved by the plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 for a decree on admission. Both these applications are being taken up for disposal by this common order since the facts and issues involved are common. ( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience the facts of Suit No. 1528/95 are being considered in this application. The plaintiff s case is that in the year 1977, it entered into an agreement to purchase flat Nos. 11 and 12 admeasuring 1418 sq. fts situated on the second floor of Gopal Das Verma Bhawan, 28 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The plaintiff claims to have paid 82. 5% of the sale consideration during the period 14. 6. 1977 to January, 1985. Plaintiff further claims that on 21. 6. 1995, he sent a further cheque of Rs. 1,06,350. 00. The defendants, it is urged, have turned dishonest and are not completing the sale transaction despite the plaintiff being ready and willing to do so. ( 3 ) THE present application is primarily based on the plaintiff s submission that there could not be a unilateral recission of the contract by the defendants and any such repudiation which gives rise to recission of contract under Section 62 of the Contract Act, should be a bilateral act. the precise submission is that in this case the defendants at best can claim that they had unilaterally terminated and cancelled the arrangement vide their letter dated 20. 11. 1986. Such a cancellation would be bad at law and of no legal effect. This being the main defence taken by the defendant in its written statement, learned counsel for plaintiff urges that plaintiff is entitled to have a decree passed under Order XII Rule 6 for specific performance of the contract. ( 4 ) IN the facts of the present case, this submission would not hold good. The defendants in the written statement have averred that there was no concluded contract and there was only a provisional allotment, which was subject to execution of a Flat Buyers agreement. ( 4 ) IN the facts of the present case, this submission would not hold good. The defendants in the written statement have averred that there was no concluded contract and there was only a provisional allotment, which was subject to execution of a Flat Buyers agreement. The case of the defendant is that this "flat Buyers agreement" never got to be executed and defendants were fully within their rights to cancel the provisional allotment, which had been done as per the defendants by addressing a communication dated 20. 11. 1986 sent by registered post. In support of the same postal receipt for the cancellation is said to have been filed on record. The legal pleas raised by the plaintiff are those, which would be considered during trial and at the stage of final arguments. It is worthwhile to produce an extract from the application form, which formed the basis of provisional allotment to the plaintiff:- "i am enclosing cheque No. 891501 dated 14. 6. 1977 drawn on the Punjab Sind Bank for Rs. 1,41,800. 00 (Rupees one lac forty one thousand eight hundred only) you may hold this amount on my behalf. I agree that encashment of this cheque by you will not amount to acceptance of my offer, and it is only and when the flat buyers agreement is signed and executed, that a contract will come into existence, I further agree that in the unforeseen event of the proposed building construction not commencing. I shall only be entitled to refund of the amount given herewith without interest. " ( 5 ) THIS letter was acknowledged by receipt dated 15. 6. 1977. The question; whether there was only a provisional allotment, which was subject to execution of a Flat Buyers Agreement or the plaintiff could prove a concluded contract from other correspondence can be seen during trial after evidence is led. It may also be noted that the defendants have also taken the objection that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation as the said suit was filed in 1995 and the defendants claim to have cancelled the allotment as far back in November, 1986. In view of the foregoing discussion this is not a case where the court should exercise its discretion to decree the suit on admissions. ( 6 ) THE facts and pleas of IA. In view of the foregoing discussion this is not a case where the court should exercise its discretion to decree the suit on admissions. ( 6 ) THE facts and pleas of IA. 5547/95 in Suit No. 1528/95 being similar, both the interim applications i. e. IA. 5547/99 in Suit No. 1528/95 and IA. 5548/99 in S. No. 1529/95 are dismissed.