S G Pandit, J. - (1.)Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.7823/2007. They are before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 05-04-2018 passed by the 11th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A. No.11 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC which was rejected by the trial Court.
(2.)Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
(3.)The brief facts of the case are that:- The plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.7823/2007 seeking for specific performance of the contract dated 31-10-1981. It is the case of the plaintiffs that during March 1982, the entire sale consideration was paid and the plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit schedule property. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant in his written statement had admitted the agree'ment and possession of the plaintiffs. But, later on it was the case of the defendant that the plaintiffs ceased to be in possession as they did not get the sale deed executed and hence, they became the tenants under him.