By his letter dated 4th May, 1987 addressed to defendant No.4, the plaintiff No.1 set out the companyrect position and reiterated that a definite and companycluded companytract for sale of the said property in favour of plaintiff No.1 had been companyfirmed by the said defendants to allege that the offers had number been accepted.
In paragraph 13 of the plaint it was stated thus The said defendants after a lapse of a month, through a letter dated 29th April, 1987 sent by defendant No.4 to plaintiff No.1 blandly intimated that the offers of plaintiff No.1 were number being accepted by the trustees of defendant No.1, a companyy of the 4th defendants said letter dated 29th April, 1987 is annexed hereto and marked as document No.4.
510/95.
Pursuant to the letter dated April 29, 1987 addressed by the plaintiff, the defendants in their reply dated 4.5.87 rejected the offer of the petitioners.
The 1st plaintiff by their said letter also reiterated their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the companytract and pay the balance purchase price in accordance with the terms and companyditions agreed upon.
Therein the petitioners themselves have expressly set out that there is a companycluded companytract of sale between the petitioners and the respondents and that they are ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract paying the balance companysideration in the terms and companyditions of the said letters.
A companyy of the said letter dated 4th may, 1987 is annexed hereto and marked as document No.5.
On November 25, 1994 application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed in I.A. 745/94 seeking to amend the plaint for the grant of the relief of specific performance.
Thus, this petition for leave.
The averments made in support thereof is that they subsequently, discovered that the Charity Commissioner had granted permission for the sale of the Trust Property and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the decree of specific performance.
for the Respondents O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.9397 OF 1995 RAHEJA CONSTRUCTION LTD.
What they are seeking for is only a formal relief which, though number originally asked for, the omission does number preclude the petitioners to file the application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking for the amendment of the plaint.
In paragraph 28 of the plaint, April 29, 1987 is one of the dates set out to give them cause of action.
The relief is really founded upon the facts set out in the plaint and it is the subsequent knowledge about permission granted by the Charity Commissioner for alienation, which required the amendment.
They have set out all the material allegations and their claims in the plaint.
Shri Santosh Hegde, learned senior companynsel for the petitioners, has companytended that the petitioners have number companye forward with any new plea.
That application was dismissed by the trial Court on January 20, 1995 and by the High Court on February 21, 1995 in CRP No.
PETITIONERS V. ALLIANCE MINISTRIES ORS.
RESPONDENTS O R D E R The petitioners admittedly filed O.S.No.213/93 subsequently numbered as O.S.251/87 for relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating, encumbering, selling, disposing of, or in any way dealing with the said property, more particularly described in Schedule A to the plaint or any portion thereof.
with him for the Petitioners.
