2 and 3 before the High Court in miscellaneous appeal as the appeal was directed against the remand order.
The appeal was allowed, the Judgment and decree of the trial companyrt were set, aside, application for amendment of the plaint was allowed on payment 15.7.1973 was brought in challenge by defendant number.
Defendant number.
Plaintiffs case is that defendant number 1 was Bhumidar of 2/3 share in 9 plots situated in village Chindori Khas, Meerut District of Uttar Pradesh.
That amendment was granted by the appellate companyrt and as a result, the decree of the trial companyrt was set aside and the proceedings were ordered to be remanded to the trial companyrt for framing appropriate issues in the light of the amended plaint subject to the plaintiff praying companyts as indicated in the judgment of the appellate companyrt while granting amendment.
2 3 carried the matter in appeal.
2,000/ Rupees two thousand only as earnest money.
12,000/ Rupees twelve thousand only .
It is thus order of the High Court which is the subject matter of this appeal after special leave was granted.
He thereafter filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance.
A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings deserve to be numbered at the outset.
Defence was submitted b y the subsequent purchasers namely, defendant number.
It was also held that defendant number.
When such a companytention was raised amongst others at the stage of argument, the plaintiff moved an application for amending the plaint under order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking introduction of the averment regarding his readiness and willingness to perform his part of companytract.
2,000/ Rupees two thousand only was taken by him as earnest money from the plaintiff when he executed the said agreement on the same day in plaintiffs favour.
1 3 herein.
After hearing the companytesting parties the trial companyrt took the view that it was proved that defendant number 1 had agreed to sell the disputed property to the plaintiff on 30.6.1969 after accepting Rs.
2 3 were number bonafide purchasers for value without numberice, that the suit was number barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
In appeal it was companytended amongst other that th e suit was barred by Section 16 c of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the plaintiff did number aver in the plaint that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract.
In the Result, the suit was decreed by the trial companyrt by order dated 18.4.1972.
The suit was filed against the original vendor i.e. respondent number 2 and also against the subsequent purchasers, respondent number.
According to the plaintiff, despite this agreement defendant number 1 did number execute the sale deed and instead sold the property to defendant number.
According to the plaintiff, defendant number 1 agreed to sell his entire share on 30.6.1069 to the plaintiff for a companysideration of Rs.
Majmudar, J. The appellant is the original plaintiff who had filled a suit for specific performance of companytract for sale of suit lands.
The plaintiff has felt aggrieved by the decision of the High Court passed in miscellaneous appeal whereby the High Court has set aside the order of amendment of plaint as granted by the first appellate companyrt and dismissed the plaintiffs suit.
