ADCON ELECTRONIC PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DAULAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, raises an interesting question : whether a suit simpliciter for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property is a 'suit for land' within CI.12 of Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay

(2.) The appellant is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal arises. In this judgment the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

(3.) The facts lie in a narrow campus (compass) and are not in dispute. By an agreement of July 12, 1986 land together building known as "Vithal Bhavan," bearing No. 6/5 (Block No.24), South Tukoganj, Indore, M.P. (for short, 'the suit property') was agreed to be sold by the defendant to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 53,75,000/-. Subsequently the parties executed a memorandum also in regard to the suit property on August 1, 1987. Disputes arose between the parties with regard to the performance of the said agreement. The plaintiffs filed Suit No. 1088 of 1989 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (for short. 'the High Court') against the defendant praying, inter alia, for a declaration that agreement dated July 12, 1986 and memorandum dated August 1, 1987 are subsisting and binding on the defendant and for a decree of specific performance of the said agreement and memorandum. The suit was filed with the leave of the Court under Cl.12 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Presidency of Bombay (referred to in this judgment as 'the Letters Patent'). A learned single Judge of the High Court granted leave on April 4, 1989. The defendant took out chamber summons No. 862 of 1989 in the suit for revocation of leave granted to the plaintiffs. The learned single Judge dismissed the chamber summons on January 22, 1990. That order was assailed by the defendant in L.P.A. No. 697 of 1990. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the L.P.A. on July 30, 1990. It is that order of the Division Bench which is under challenge in this appeal.