K. S. Gupta,j. ( 1 ) PLAINTIFF filed this suit, inter alia, alleging that defendant is alessee of the land measuring 100 sq. yds. , bearing No. 8a/1 situted atjheel Kuranja,geeta Colony. He is also the owner of superstruture built over the said landcomprising of two rooms, one store, kitchen, bath, latrine, stairs and courtyard. Thedefendant who is in possession of said property, agreed to sell it to plaintiff for a sumof Rs. 4,50,000. 00 under an agreement of sale dated 24/08/1986. Out of theagreed sale consideration, defendant received Rs. 25,000. 00 at the time of executionof said agreement of sale and the balance amount was to be received by him ondelivering the vacant possession of the property uptil 10/12/1986. Defendant was to obtain sale permission from Landdo, Nirman Bhavan and toexecute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee within the said period. Itis further alleged that an additional amount of Rs. 25,000. 00 was paid to the defenanton 4/09/1986 and a"i endorsement regarding that payment was made onthe reverse side of said agreement of sale. After having agreed to sell the saidproperty, the defendant has been on the look out for alternate property for hisresidence. Having failed to arange alternate property, the defendant asked theplaintiff for extension of time and with mutual consent the time to execute the saledeed etc. was extended upto 15/01/1987 and an endorsement to that effectwas made again on the reverse side of the said agreement of sale on 8/12/1986. It is pleaded that before the expiry of extended period at the request ofdefendant, time was further extended upto 15/04/1987 vide another agreementdated 14/01/1987 which was executed in continuation of said agreement ofsale dated 24/08/1986. ( 2 ) IT is also alleged that the plaintiff has been and is still ready and willing toperform his part of the obligations under the said two agreements. However, inspiteof number of requests made by the plantiff himself and also through the propertydealer, the defendant has failed to perform his part of the obligations under the saidagreements. He has even failed to take steps to get the permission renewed or timeextended by Landdo for sale of the said property to the plaintiff. However, inspiteof number of requests made by the plantiff himself and also through the propertydealer, the defendant has failed to perform his part of the obligations under the saidagreements. He has even failed to take steps to get the permission renewed or timeextended by Landdo for sale of the said property to the plaintiff. It is stated that if thedefendant is unwilling to perform the obligations under the said agreements anddeliver vacant possession of the said property to the plaintiff, he is willing to receivecompensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs in addition to the refund of the amounts paidfrom the defendant. Plaintiff even sent a legal notice dated 4/04/1987 to thedefendant and as is evident from the reply dated 13/04/1987 sent by thedefendant, the latter has backed out of the transaction. It was prayed that a decreefor specific performance of the agreements dated 24/07/1986 and 14/01/1987 may be passed against the defendant and the plaintiff be put into possessionof said property No. 8a/1, Jheel Kuranja, Geeta Colony. In the alternative, a decreefor Rs. 4,50,000. 00 be passed against the defendant. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT contested the suit by filing written statement. It is admitted thatdefendant is the owner of property No 8a/1, Jheel Kuranja and he agreed to sell itunder an agreement of sale dated 24/08/1986 to the plaintiff. It is furtheradmitted that the balance amount of Rs. 4,25,000. 00 was to be paid by the plaintiffuptil 10/12/1986 and the defendant was to execute the sale deed in favourof plaintiff after obtaining sale permission from Landdo upto the said date. It isalleged that the defendant had applied for sale permission and the Landdo communicated that permission by the letter dated 21/10/1986 which was valid for90 days from the date of issue. Plaintiff was duly informed about the grant of salepermission but the sale transaction could not be completed as the plaintiff was shortof money. Receipt of additional amount of Rs. 25,000. 00 on 4/09/1986 andmaking of endorsement regarding that payment on the back of said agreement ofsale is not denied. It is alleged that it was at the request of plaintiff the defendantagreed to extend the time under another agreement dated 14/01/1987 upto 15/02/1987. It appears that in that agreement the numerical figure of 2 hasbeen replaced by 4 unauthorisedly by the plaintiff. It is alleged that it was at the request of plaintiff the defendantagreed to extend the time under another agreement dated 14/01/1987 upto 15/02/1987. It appears that in that agreement the numerical figure of 2 hasbeen replaced by 4 unauthorisedly by the plaintiff. It is pleaded that the defendanthad entered into an agreement dated 25/08/1986 with B. L. Ahuja forpurchase of property No. H-149 situated at Old Gupta Colony for Rs. 4,62,500. 00which transaction was to be completed on or by 10/12/1986. Defendantalso paid a total sum of Rs. 55,000. 00 towards earnest money and part payment tosaid B. L. Ahuja. Due to non-finalisation of sale transaction of the suit propertywithin the stipulated period by the plaintiff, the defendant was unable to purchasethe said property from B. L. Ahuja and had to incur loss to the extent of Rs. 35,000. 00 which Shri Ahuja refused to return out of the total payment of Rs. 55,000. 00 made to him. Receipt of the plaintiff s notice dated 4/04/1987 isadmitted. It is stated that reply thereto dated 13/04/1987 was sent by thedefendant through Counsel. It is asserted that the plaintiff was unable to arrange thebalance amount of Rs. 4 lacs upto the extended date of 15/02/1987. Plaintiffhad assured the defendant that he would be able to arrange the balance amountbefore the expiry of sale permission which he could not do. The amounts paid bythe plaintiff stand forfeited because of the breach of conditions of the said agreements. It is denied that the plaintiff is entitled to claim any compensation from thedefendant. It is alleged that the suit property is the only property owned by thedefendant in Delhi wherein he is living with his family. It is emphatically deniedthat the plaintiff is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the suit. ( 4 ) IN the replication, the plaintiff has controverted the averments made in thewritten statement besides reaffirming those made in the plaint. ( 5 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff committed breach of Clause 2 ofthe agreement dated 24th August, 86? If so, to what effect? OPD2. Whether plaintiff was ready and willing to perform hispart of the agreement dated 24/08/1986 precedingthe date of the institution of the suit? OFF3. ( 5 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff committed breach of Clause 2 ofthe agreement dated 24th August, 86? If so, to what effect? OPD2. Whether plaintiff was ready and willing to perform hispart of the agreement dated 24/08/1986 precedingthe date of the institution of the suit? OFF3. Whether the agreement dated 14/01/1987 wherebythe time for performing the agreement was extended, hasbeen materially altered by plaintiff as alleged by defendant? OFD4. Whether defendant was ready and willing to perform hispart of the agreement? OFD5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specificperformance? OFF6. Relief. ISSUE NO. 3 ( 6 ) IT is admitted case of the parties that defendant had agreed to sell propertyno. 8-A/1, Jheel Kuranja, Geeta Colony to the plaintiff for a total sum of Rs. 4,50,000. 00 and he was to obtain the sale permission from Landdo and to execute saledeed uptil 10/12/1986 on receiving the said amount minus Rs. 50,000. 00which were received by him by way of earnest money/part payment under theagreement Ex. F-l dated 24/08/1986. With mutual consent of both the parties,the time was extended on 8/12/1986 upto 15/01/1987. It is further theadmitted case of parties that in continuation of aforesaid agreement Ex. F-l, anotheragreement Ex. F-2 was executed on 14/01/1987. Flaintiff alleges that in termsof the agreement Ex. F-2, time was further extended upto 15/04/1987 to executethe sale deed etc. by the defendant. However, contention of the defendant is thatfurther time was extended only upto 15/02/1987 and the plaintiff hadinterpolated the numerical figure of 2 to 4 regarding month in the agreement Ex. F-2. On this issue, from the side of plaintiff only the statements of plaintiff Public Witness 4,jagan Nath FW 5 and Jograj FW 6 are relevant. FW 4 has deposed that the agreementex. F-2 was typed out including the date as 15/04/1987 first and therefter he andthe defendant signed it in the presence of attesting witnesses Jagan Nath and Jograj,property dealers through whom the deal was finalised. He denied the suggestionthat date was changed from 15. 2. 1987 to 15. 4. 1987 by erasing and replacing thefigure of 2 by 4 after the execution of agreement Ex. P-2. Public Witness 5 has deposed thatagreement Ex. P-2 bears his signature in Urdu as a witness. In terms of the agreementex. He denied the suggestionthat date was changed from 15. 2. 1987 to 15. 4. 1987 by erasing and replacing thefigure of 2 by 4 after the execution of agreement Ex. P-2. Public Witness 5 has deposed thatagreement Ex. P-2 bears his signature in Urdu as a witness. In terms of the agreementex. P-2, the time was extended on 14/01/1987 upto 15/04/1987 by theparties in his presence and that of Jograj. One copy each of the said agreement wasgiven to the defendant and Jograj. He acted as property dealer for the defendantwhile Jograj for the plaintiff. He emphatically denied the suggestion that at the timesaid agreement was signed, the date was mentioned as 15/02/1987 therein. PW 6 has deposed that he acted as property dealer on behalf of the plaintiff whilejagan Nath for the defendant. The date of 15/04/1987 was there in theagreement Ex. P-2 before both the parties and the witnesses appended theirsignatures thereon. One copy of the said agreement was retained by him whileanother typed copy was given to the defendant and Ex. Public Witness 6/2 is the copy of saidagreement retained by him. In cross-examination, he stated that the figure of 4 occurring at two places in Ex. P-2 and also in Ex. Public Witness 6/2 appears to have beenoverwritten. He, however, asserted that the said figure of 4 was already there in Ex. P-2 before the parties signed it. It was not even remotely suggested to PWs 5 and 6 thateither the deal for sale of said property No. 8-A/1, Jheel Kuranja was not finalisedthrough them or that they did not sign the agreement Ex. P-2 simultaneously withthe signing of this agreement by the plaintiff and defendant implying thereby thatit is admitted by the defendant that the deal for sale of said property was settledthrough both these PWs and they were also present at the time the plaintiff anddefendant appended their signatures on said agreement Ex. P-2. On the other hand,defendant as DW 1 has deposed that the agreement Ex. P-1 contains his signatureson each and every cutting whereas the agreement Ex. P-2 does not contain hissignatures as regards over written dates at two places from 15. 2. 1987 to 15. 4. 1987. For that reason he says that the figure of 4 has been overwritten at two places in saidagreement Ex. P-2. P-1 contains his signatureson each and every cutting whereas the agreement Ex. P-2 does not contain hissignatures as regards over written dates at two places from 15. 2. 1987 to 15. 4. 1987. For that reason he says that the figure of 4 has been overwritten at two places in saidagreement Ex. P-2. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he hadagreed to extend the time upto 15/04/1987 and that time was already typed inthe agreement Ex. P-2 before the parties signed it. ( 7 ) IT may be noticed that the defendant whom a copy of aforesaid agreementex. P-2 was given, himself had filed a photostat copy of that agreement Ex. D-1. Inex. D-l the extended time is noted as 15. 4. 1987 at two places. A bare perusal of theagreement Ex. P-2 indicates that there is double impression in the typed numericalfigure of "4 pertaining to month of the extended period at two places. Had thenumerical figure of "2 been altered to 4 in the agreement Ex. P-2 later on, there wasno occasion of the extended time uptil l5. 4. 1987 being recorded in the said photostatcopy of agreement Ex. D-l filed by the defendant. It may further be noticed that interms of the legal notice Ex. P-3 dated 4/04/1987 got sent by the plaintiff, thedefendant was asked to execute the sale deed in plaintiff s favour within seven daysof the receipt of notice. Notice Ex. P-3 also notices that in terms of said agreementdated 14/01/1987, the time for execution of sale deed was extended furtherupto 15/04/1987. Ex. D-3 dated 13/04/1987 is the reply to the said noticegot issued by the defendant through Counsel to the plaintiff. Significantly, in thereply Ex. D-3 it was not refuted that the extended date in the said agreement wasuptil 15/02/1987 instead of 15/04/1987 as is now sought to be allegedby the defendant. Considering this omission, the circumstance referred to abovecoupled with depositions of PWs 4,5 and 6,1 have no hesitaton in holding that in thesaid agreement Ex. P-2 the extended time for performing the agreement of sale wasnot altered to 15/04/1987 later on by the plaintiff. Issue is answered against thedefendant. ISSUE NOS. 1,2,4 and 5( 8 ) THESE issues can be taken together for discussion. P-2 the extended time for performing the agreement of sale wasnot altered to 15/04/1987 later on by the plaintiff. Issue is answered against thedefendant. ISSUE NOS. 1,2,4 and 5( 8 ) THESE issues can be taken together for discussion. On the point of readinessand willingness, plaintiff as Public Witness 4 has stated that he has been although ready toperform his part of the contract having already paid Rs. 50,000. 00. When thedefendant failed to execute the sale deed despite requests, he got the legal notice Ex. P-3 issued to the defendant. He also sent telegram Ex. D-4 to the defendant. On 1 4/04/1987, he withdrew Rs. 4 lacs from the Bank. On 15/04/1987 he alongwiththe property dealer waited at the office of Sub-Registrar, Krishna Nagar for thedefendant to execute the sale deed in his favour but he did not turn up. He isinterested in the suit property as he wants it for his personal use. In crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that he did not have enough money to paythe balance sale consideration to the defendant and that the defendant hadcontracted to buy a house from one B. L. Ahuja. As against this, defendant as DWI has deposed that he has four daughters and does not have a son. One of thedaughters is residing in Delhi. He wanted to buy an alternate house nearby hisdaughter s house after selling the suit property. So on 25/08/1986 he enteredinto an agreement Ex. DW I/i with B. L. Ahuja to purchase his house situated ingupta Colony which is nearer to his daughter s house. He was to complete the saletransaction under the agreement Ex. DW I/i upto 10/12/1986. Rs. 30,000. 00 and Rs. 25,000. 00 were paid by him to said B. L. Ahuja. He does not want tosell the suit property now because the agreement for purchase of alternate housewith B. L. Ahuja fell through and he has got no other house to live in. He is willingto repay Rs. 50,000. 00 received form the plaintiff together with interest thereon. Incross-examination, he stated that previously also he had entered into an agreementof sale of the suit property with Ramesh Chander and Chander Mohan on 1 1/02/1985 for a consideration of Rs. 3,20,000. 00and received Rs. 25,000. 00by wayof advance. Deal with B. L. Ahuja was independent of the agreement of sale enteredinto with the plaintiff. Incross-examination, he stated that previously also he had entered into an agreementof sale of the suit property with Ramesh Chander and Chander Mohan on 1 1/02/1985 for a consideration of Rs. 3,20,000. 00and received Rs. 25,000. 00by wayof advance. Deal with B. L. Ahuja was independent of the agreement of sale enteredinto with the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that no agreement of sale wasentered into with B. L. Ahuja. ( 9 ) SUBMISSIONS advanced by Mr. M. L. Sachdeva appearing for the defendantwas that the agreement of sale Ex. DW 1 /1 entered into between the defendant andb. L. Ahuja for purchase of property No. H-149, Old Gupta Colony, Delhi could notmaterialise because of lapse on the part of plaintiff in not paying the balance saleconsideration of Rs. 4 lacs to the defendant upto 10/12/1986 which wasalso the last date stipulated in the said agreement for completion of sale transaction. In the absence of alternate accommodation, the defendant is not willing to sell thesuit property to the plaintiff. In view of the said facts, this Court should decline thespecific performance of the agreement of sale Ex. P-l which is a discretionary relief. Reliance was placed on the decision in Smt. Ranganayakamma v. N. Govindanarayan, AIR 1982 Kar 264 . ( 10 ) EX. P-5 is the certified copy of the application filed on 19/09/1986before the Competent Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1976 seeking permission to transfer aforesaid property No. H-149 by said B. LAhuja. Ex. Public Witness 2/3 is the certified copy of the proceedings in the said matter. Proceedings as recorded in Ex. Public Witness 2/3 reveal that on 29/09/1986, the casewas postponed to 6/10/1986 for recording the statement of purchaser. Asnone was present either for the seller or purchaser on 6/10/1986, the case wasadjourned to 14/10/1986. Same was the position on that date and the casewas again adjourned to 21/10/1986. On that date, as none was present forboth the parties, said application was dismissed in default. Ex. Public Witness 2/4 is thecertified copy of the order made on 21/10/1986 by the Competent Authoritydismissing the said application in default. There is absolutely no material on the fileto suggest that any step was taken therefter by said B. L. Ahuja for restoration of thesaid application. Ex. Public Witness 2/4 is thecertified copy of the order made on 21/10/1986 by the Competent Authoritydismissing the said application in default. There is absolutely no material on the fileto suggest that any step was taken therefter by said B. L. Ahuja for restoration of thesaid application. In the absence of sale permission from the Competent Authorityunder the said Act, B. L. Ahuja could not have sold said property No. H-149 to thedefendant. Suffice it to say that under the agreement of sale Ex. P-l the outer datefor execution of the sale deed in regard to the suit property was 10/12/1986which admittedly came to be extended mutually on 8/12/1986 to 1 5/01/1987 and again upto 15/04/1987 under another agreement Ex. P-2. Since the application filed by said B. L. Ahuja seeking permission to transfer saidproperty No. H-149 was itself dismissed on 21/10/1986 in default, the plearaised by the defendant that the transaction for purchase of said property did notmaterialise as the balance payment of Rs. 4 lacs was not made by the plaintiff to thedefendant, has to be rejected being dishonest. ( 11 ) AS regards second limb of argument referred to above that hard ship wouldbe caused to the defendant if the agreement of sale Ex. P-2 is enforced as he does notown any other house in Delhi, it may be noticed that the defendant was fully awareof such a hardship at the time he entered into aforesaid agreement of sale Ex. P-lwith the plaintiff. Alleged hardship would not bring the case within the ambit ofclause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of Specific Relief Act. I am fortified in thisview of mine by the decision in Yohannan and Anr. v. Harikrishnan Nair and Ors. , AIR1992 Kerala 49 (para No. 25 ). Decision in Smt. Ranganayakamma s case (supra) has noapplicability to the facts of this case as in that case it was found that the appellantwas a widow with no children and only source of her livelihood was the rent of Rs. 50. 00 per month received from the tenant who was occupying a portion of the housewhich was the subject matter of the agreement dated 17/11/1969 of whichspecific performance was sought by the respondent. ( 12 ) IT was next urged on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff was notwilling and ready to perform his part of the obligation under the agreement of saleex. ( 12 ) IT was next urged on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff was notwilling and ready to perform his part of the obligation under the agreement of saleex. P-l inasmuch as extention for making payment of the balance sale considerationof Rs. 4 lacs was sought by him twice and despite that the payment was not madeupto 15/02/1987. My attention was also drawn to the admissions made incross-examination by Public Witness 3 Jai Kumar Garg, Clerk, Bank of Baroda, Branch Jheelkuranja. Reliance was further placed on the decisions in Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin andors. v. S. Kartar Singh Mehta, AIR 1975 Delhi 137; R. K. Aneja v. Delhi Developmentauthority and Am. , 19961 AD (Delhi) 909, and Smt. Kamal Rani v. Smt. Chand Rani,air 1980 Delhi 188. ( 13 ) IT is admitted case of the parties that time for execution of the sale deed asprovided in the agreement of sale Ex. P-1 was mutually extended by the parties from 10/12/1986 upto 15/01/1987 and for further extension of time theagreement Ex. P-2 was executed between the parties on 14/01/1987. On issue. No. 3, it has been found that in terms of Ex. P-2, time was further extended upto 1 5/04/1987 instead of 15/02/1987 as alleged by the defendant. That beingso, extensions of time. beyond 10/12/1986 on two occasions and the nonpayment of balance sale consideration upto 15/02/1987 by the plaintiffcannot be made the basis to contend now that the plaintiff had not been willing toperform his part of the obligation under the agreement of sale Ex. P-l. It is pertinentto note that in terms of the legal notice Ex. P-3 dated 4/04/1987, the defendantwas called upon by the plaintiff to execute the sale deed of the suit property in hisfavour within seven days of its receipt. Through the telegram Ex. D-4 dated 1 3/04/1987, the plaintiff had asked the defendant to report for executing the saledeed on 15/04/1987 before the Sub-Registrar, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Receiptsexs. Public Witness 4/1 and 2 seem to have been obtained by the plaintiff as proof of his havingattended the office of Sub-Registrar, Krishna Nagar on 15/04/1987. Certificateex. P-3/1 issued under the signature of the Manager, Traders Bank Limited, Jheelkuranja notices that a sum of Rs, 4 lacs was withdrawn by the plaintiff from hisaccount No. 3251 on 14/04/1987. Receiptsexs. Public Witness 4/1 and 2 seem to have been obtained by the plaintiff as proof of his havingattended the office of Sub-Registrar, Krishna Nagar on 15/04/1987. Certificateex. P-3/1 issued under the signature of the Manager, Traders Bank Limited, Jheelkuranja notices that a sum of Rs, 4 lacs was withdrawn by the plaintiff from hisaccount No. 3251 on 14/04/1987. Adverting to the statement of Public Witness 3 Jai Kumargarg, in cross-examination this witness has stated that the plaintiff had opened anaccount with Traders Bank Ltd. on 19/04/1986 by depositing a sum of Rs. 100. 00 and Rs. 56,000. 00 or Rs. 57,000. 00 were lying to the credit of the plaintiff in thataccount on 24/08/1986. Credit balance in that account on 14/01/1987was Rs. 15,000. 00. Despite the plaintiff, PublicWitness 4 having made the statement inexamination-in-chief that he has been althrough ready to perform his part of thecontract having already paid Rs. 50,000. 00, except putting the suggestion in crossexamination that he did not have enough money to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendant, the plaintiff was not cross-examined specifically about hisfinancial capability to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulatedperiod. In the absence of cross-examination to that effect, merely on the basis of saidadmissions made in cross-examination by Public Witness 3, it is difficult to legally infer that theplaintiff had not been ready to perform his part of the contract within the meaningof Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. From the aforesaid evidence, it standsproved beyond doubt that the plaintiff had been willing and ready to perform hispart of the contract under the agreement of sale Ex. P-l at ail relevant period. He evendeposited the amount of Rs. 4 lacs on 26/04/1987 with the Traders Bank Ltd. fora fixed term of two years against FDR No. 029889/3/87 as is manifest from theorder dated 28/04/1987. This amount continues to be deposited till date. In Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin s case (supra), specific performance of the agreement of sale wasdeclined mainly on the ground of purchaser insisting upon the sellers for a copy ofthe certificate from the District Judge in respect of Chandra Prakash, one of theminor sellers who had already attained the majority on 16/08/1962. This amount continues to be deposited till date. In Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin s case (supra), specific performance of the agreement of sale wasdeclined mainly on the ground of purchaser insisting upon the sellers for a copy ofthe certificate from the District Judge in respect of Chandra Prakash, one of theminor sellers who had already attained the majority on 16/08/1962. In R. K. Ajena s case (supra), the contention of the plaintiff till the date of the filing of the suitand even till the date of addressing arguments had been that he was not under legalobligation to pay the balance amount as demanded by the defendant since the plothad not been developed by DDA. In that context, the declarations sought for in thesuit were declined holding that there was no material on record to justify aconclusion that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of thecontract by depositing the balance amount within the stipulated period from thedate of acceptance of bid by the Lt. Governor. In Smt. Kamal Rani s case (supra),specific performance of the agreement to sell was declined on the ground of timebeing the essence of contract and non-payment of Rs. 98,000. 00 by the vendee within10 days period. These decisions being distinguishable on facts, have no applicability to the facts of the present case. Said discussion covers the issues other than No. 4. ( 14 ) AS regards issue No. 4, Dhare Singh, UDC from the office of Landdo as PWI has stated that Kasturi Lal had applied for sale permission of property No. 8-A/i, Jheel Kuranja to the Landdo on 16/02/1985 and permission was grantedon 30/05/1985. Ex. D-2 is the sale permission dated 21/10/1986 which wasvalid for 90 days. The defendant did not apply for extension of sale permissionthereafter. In cross-examination, the plaintiff, Public Witness 4 denied the suggestion that afterthe execution of agreement Ex. P-2 he had assured the defendant that he would beable to arrange the balance money within a week before the sale permission expires. It is in the examination-in-chief of the defendant, DW I that he had applied to Landdofor sale permission of the suit property and the same was granted on 21/10/1986 and was valid upto 20/01/1987. Although under the agreement Ex. It is in the examination-in-chief of the defendant, DW I that he had applied to Landdofor sale permission of the suit property and the same was granted on 21/10/1986 and was valid upto 20/01/1987. Although under the agreement Ex. P-2, sale transaction was to be completed upto 15/02/1987 but the plaintifftold him that he will be able to pay the balance money to him within a week but hedid not keep the promise. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not movethe Landdo for extension of sale permission. It does not appeal to reasons that theplaintiff would have agreed to pay the balance sale consideration and get the saledeed of the suit property executed in his favour by 20/01/1987 particularlywhen under the agreement Ex. P-2, the time for completing sale transaction hadbeen extended on 14/01/1987 upto 15/04/1987. Obviously, the defendant was not willing and ready to perform his part of the contract under the aforeaidagreement of sale Ex. P-l as he did not seek the extension of sale permission beyond 20/01/1987 nor attended the office of Sub-Registrar, Krishna Nagar toexecute the sale deed on 15/04/1987. ( 15 ) ISSUES 1 and 4 are answered against the defendant while issues 2 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff. ISSUE NO. 6 ( 16 ) IN view of the findings on said issues, the suit is decreed with costs forspecific performance of the agreement Ex. P-l. The defendant will move the Landdofor grant of permission to sell property No. 8-A/1, Jheel Kuranja, Geeta Colony infavour of the plaintiff and take all necessary steps in the matter within two weeksfrom today. Landdo will take appropriate decision within four weeks from the dateof receipt of such a request from the defendant. Irrespective of the decision to betaken by the Landdo, the defendant would attend the office during working hoursof the concerned Sub-Registrar on 25/04/2000 and execute the sale deed withrespect to the right, title and interest which he may have in the said property infavour of the plaintiff or his nominee as per the agreement of sale Ex. P-l on receiptof the balance amount of Rs. 4 lacs in addition to delivering of vacant possession ofproperty to the plaintiff. In the event of defendant failing to comply with any of thesaid directions, the plaintiff will be entitled to have the needful done by the Registrarof this Court. P-l on receiptof the balance amount of Rs. 4 lacs in addition to delivering of vacant possession ofproperty to the plaintiff. In the event of defendant failing to comply with any of thesaid directions, the plaintiff will be entitled to have the needful done by the Registrarof this Court. Deposited amount together with interest be returned to the plaintiff. Suit decreed with costs.