Sale deed was executed in respect of the land and there was specific provision in a preceding agreement that four persons were to be given employment.
Stand of the defendants was that the suit was number maintainable.
The First Appellate Court and the High Court were of the same view.
The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court accepted the position that three persons had been given jobs but held that numberjob was provided to the appellant.
Allegation was that only three had been provided employment and in spite of assurance the defendants did number give the job to the plaintiffs.
The Trial Court numbericed that even though it was companytended by the present appellants that one son of the plaintiff had been given a job, numberdocument in that regard had been filed.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the companytract of employment.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur Bench dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants.
