JUDGMENT: 1. This is defendants appeal. 2, The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows - The plaintiff was interested in buying agricultural land. He had, therefore, made a request to one Mr.Bang to be in search of agricultural land for him. Through Shri Bang, the plaintiff approached the defendant no.1 in September, 1989 for purchasing the land belonging to the defendant. The defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.40,000/- per acre. It was agreed initially that the plaintiff will pay Rs.5000/- as an advance and part of the consideration i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- shall be paid on or about 6/11/1989, on the date the defendant agreed to execute an agreement of sale. Balance of the consideration was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale-deed. The defendant executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff paid him Rs.1,55,000/-. It was agreed that the property shall be sold free from all encumbrances. The agreement was to be completed by 30/5/1990. It was also agreed that the defendant would assist the plaintiff in obtaining No-objection-Certificate from the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Income Tax Clearance Certificate and other things. The plaintiff submits that he was always ready and willing to take the sale-deed. The defendant did not collect the necessary documents. On the other hand, he sent a notice to the plaintiff informing that he is not ready to execute the sale-deed . The plaintiff had sent reply to the said notice. The defendant did not execute the sale-deed even though the notice was issued to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has instituted the suit for specific performance of the contract. 3. The defendants resisted the suit. The defendants denied the allegations made by the plaintiff. It is the contention of the defendants that defendant no.1 is a person who is more than 70 years of age. He has no power of understanding. Taking undue advantage of this, the plaintiff played fraud on defendant no.1. The agreement was never readover to the defendant. The defendant did not consult his sons. The land is a Kotwal Dunga land which was given to defendant no.1 by the Government. This fact was known to the plaintiff. The said land could not be sold without permission of the Government. The agreement was never readover to the defendant. The defendant did not consult his sons. The land is a Kotwal Dunga land which was given to defendant no.1 by the Government. This fact was known to the plaintiff. The said land could not be sold without permission of the Government. It is contended that therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for specific performance. It is further contended that the price as offered by the plaintiff is too inadequate. The plaintiff not being agriculturist is also not entitled to decree for specific performance. 4. On these pleadings, the learned judge of the trial court framed issues and found that there was an agreement between the parties. The plaintiff had performed his part of contract and was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. He found that the agreement was not obtained by practicing any kind of fraud or undue influence on defendant no.1. Holding so, he granted a decree for specific performance of the contract upon obtaining permission from the Collector. Being aggrieved by that judgment and decree, this appeal has been preferred. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent. 6. The following point arise for my consideration, upon the submission made by the learned counsel. Whether the learned judge of the lower court rightly exercised the discretion in favour of the plaintiff ? .. ..................... .. Yes. R E A S O N S 7. It may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the appellants urged only one ground before this court i.e. in respect of discretion used by the learned judge of the trial court. According to the leaned counsel for the appellants, the learned judge of the lower court did not exercise the discretion in a judicious manner in granting decree for specific performance. 8. The appellants have made an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was directed that this application shall be decided while delivering the judgment of this appeal. It is alleged that the documents sought to be filed on record pertain to proceedings taken up before the revenue authority for grant of permission to purchase the land by a person who is not an agriculturist. It was directed that this application shall be decided while delivering the judgment of this appeal. It is alleged that the documents sought to be filed on record pertain to proceedings taken up before the revenue authority for grant of permission to purchase the land by a person who is not an agriculturist. These documents, according to the appellants, came into existence after the suit was decided, as those proceedings were taken up after decision of the suit. The appellants contend that if these documents are admitted, that would not cause prejudice to the respondent as he himself had moved those applications. 9. The respondent resists the application. Shri Mundra, Advocate for the appellants, submits that these documents were not in existence when the suit was tried and would help the court to come to right decision. He relied on decision of this court reported in 2004(1) BCR 479 (Iridium India Telecom Ltd. ..vs.. Motorola Inc. & ors.. The court has made following observations - 15. We have considered both these requests. The submission of Mr.Kapadia and Mr.Dhond is undoubtedly correct that from time to time the respondents are producing more and more documents. Mr.Desai has however taken us through the documents and having gone through them, we are of the opinion that it would be desirable that the respondents are permitted to produce these documents so that the entire material with respect to the prayer in the motion is before the court and the court can pronounce the judgment in a more satisfactory manner and no obscure elements remain. This is a matter where both parties are attributing dishonesty to the other. It is the case of the appellants that they have been cheated and the entire project was a fraud. As against that, the respondents contend that there was n o fraud and the appellants had complete knowledge about the scheme. The documents have a bearing on the knowledge of the appellants. It would not be proper that the judgment be pronounced without these documents being considered or else it will leave a lacuna in the evidence on record. Mr.Desai has made a statement on instructions that no further document whatsoever will be place on record. However, he requests that these documents be permitted and be taken into consideration by the Court. It would not be proper that the judgment be pronounced without these documents being considered or else it will leave a lacuna in the evidence on record. Mr.Desai has made a statement on instructions that no further document whatsoever will be place on record. However, he requests that these documents be permitted and be taken into consideration by the Court. As far as the appellants are concerned, Mr.Kapadia has stated that there are no further documents which the appellants would like to produce. In our view, both these set of documents ought to be taken on record and they are necessary to pronounce the judgment in a more satisfactory manner. The proposition laid down by the Apex Court in K.Venkataramiah's case (supra) continues to hold the field and the judgment in Bombay Municipal Corporation's case (supra) does not make any departure therefrom.. 10. The material question is whether the case falls under Clause (b) of Rule 27 of Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure, as is contended by Shri Mundra, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Mundra submitted that if these documents are accepted on record that would help the court to come to right conclusion whether the decree for specific performance should or should not be granted. The trial court has already in fact exercised the discretion. These documents relate to permission to be sought for transfer of the property as directed by the trial court. They cannot have a bearing on the question whether decree for specific performance should or should not be granted. Ultimately, the decree would always be subject to grant of such permission and such decree only has been passed by the trial court. Hence, these are not the documents which would help to pronounce the right judgment. The documents in question are not such which, if not on record, would result in a defective judgment as is held in Iridium India Telecom's (supra) case. The question as to whether a decree for specific performance should or should not be granted would not depend on these documents at all. The application has, therefore, to be disallowed. 11. This takes me to consider the main question about the discretion used by the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant urged, as said earlier, the ground of improper use of discretion by the trial court. 12. The application has, therefore, to be disallowed. 11. This takes me to consider the main question about the discretion used by the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant urged, as said earlier, the ground of improper use of discretion by the trial court. 12. Shri Mundra, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the relief of specific performance is discretionary and therefore, an equitable relief. He submitted that relief being equitable, the plaintiff should come before the court with clean hands. He submits that the plaintiff has made wrong statement in plaint and also on oath. First, according to Mr.Mundra, he describes himself as an agriculturist in the plaint which is patently false. There is no doubt that the description of the plaintiff as an agriculturist is not true, since he was required, in fact, to apply for purchasing the land being non-agriculturist. It is contended that the plaintiff had stated on oath that his income was Rs.65000/- per annum from interest and deposits etc. He had also stated on oath that he was filing income tax returns as well as wealth tax returns. Shri Mundra submits that this was also a false statement. He wanted me to look into a document i.e. application made by the plaintiff to Revenue Authorities for seeking permission to purchase the land. The production of these documents has been disallowed. He submits that the plaintiff has given his income as below Rs.12000/- per annum. Assuming for the sake of the argument that these documents could be read in evidence and the plaintiff gave a wrong information before the authority, whether that can be a ground to refuse a decree for specific performance. In fact, if the plaintiff had given a wrong information to the revenue authorities, that will be the matter between the revenue authorities and the plaintiff. As far as the defendants are concerned, the plaintiff has not acted in any manner unfairly and he has not suppressed anything from the defendants nor has given a wrong information to the defendants at all. What is required to be seen is the conduct of the plaintiff vis a vis the defendants. The defendants have not shown in what manner the plaintiff has not acted fairly and has not come with clean hands. He paid the additional amount as demanded. What is required to be seen is the conduct of the plaintiff vis a vis the defendants. The defendants have not shown in what manner the plaintiff has not acted fairly and has not come with clean hands. He paid the additional amount as demanded. On the other hand, looking to the fact that prices of the land had escalated, the defendant plainly informed the plaintiff by notice that he is not ready to execute the sale-deed. The defendant did this after accepting the money. The plaintiff had in this suit applied for temporary injunction. The Civil Judge granted injunction and also directed the defendants to deposit the earnest amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in the court. The court allowed the application. The defendants did not deposit the amount and hence ultimately the defence of the defendants was struck off. This shows that the defendants were not ready to execute the sale-deed and were not even ready to refund the earnest money. In fact, it is the conduct of the defendants which is unfair. It is not the case of the defendants that the defendants would suffer hardship or that the plaintiff would gain unfair advantage. The discretion, therefore, to my mind, was rightly used by the trial court. It may further be mentioned that the plaintiff had applied to the revenue authorities for grant of permission as directed by the trial court. The revenue authorities have already granted permission to the plaintiff. The question as to whether such permission was granted properly or improperly cannot be gone into by this court since this court cannot sit in appeal over the order passed by the revenue authorities. A separate forum is provided for that. The defendants were very much at liberty to move the appellate authority against the order granting permission to the plaintiff. The defendants instead of doing that are contending that the permission was obtained by giving wrong information to the authority. This cannot be the forum to look into those allegations. This is not a forum which can look into those allegations. 13. Shri Mundra, learned counsel, submitted that the contract was entered into in 1989 and the prices of land have increased many folds. He submits that if decree is passed that would cause tremendous loss to the defendants therefore the decree should be set aside or plaintiff be directed to adequately compensate the defendants. 13. Shri Mundra, learned counsel, submitted that the contract was entered into in 1989 and the prices of land have increased many folds. He submits that if decree is passed that would cause tremendous loss to the defendants therefore the decree should be set aside or plaintiff be directed to adequately compensate the defendants. Shri Mundra submitted that the Supreme court in AIR 2000 SC 3106 (Gobind Ram ..vs.. Gian Chand) had given a direction to mitigate the hardship to the defendant that the purchaser . the plaintiff should pay more price to the defendant. Mr.Bhangade, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that his client is not averse to pay additional price to the defendant as may be determined by this court. The price was settled at Rs.40,000/- per acre and total price was Rs.4,25,000/-. This was the price settled in 1989. Considering the price escalation in and around Nagpur city it would be just to direct the respondent-plaintiff to pay additional price of Rs.3,00,000/-. The plaintiff should, therefore, deposit Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.three lakhs only) more in the court and on such deposit in court, the plaintiff is entitled to seek possession. In the result, the appeal partly succeeds in the above terms. No order as to costs.