The terms and conditions of the agreement, particularly specific clause of clearing the due of bank are not in controversy. The only thing to be seen is whether counter claim for recovery of 20 lacs in the absence of specific relief, was maintainable or not. In this regard, as per the evidence emanating from the judgments and decrees showed that counter claimant/defendant vendee referred to Ex.D11, copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-03 already Ex.P6 on record and Ex.D10 affidavit dated 30.10.2006 showing his intention to execute and register the sale deed and as well as the telegram dated 15.04.2006, Ex.D4 showing his intention to recover the amount from the plaintiffs, vendor, who had not cleared the dues. Even during the pendency of the suit, the offer given by the vendor was meaningless as outstanding dues of the bank had not been cleared. No explanation has come forth as to why vendor did not clear the outstanding dues despite having received the earnest money of 20 lacs against the total sale consideration of `1.5 crore, therefore, in my view, the vendor cannot be permitted to forfeit the aforementioned amount. Once the terms and conditions of the agreement were not fulfilled with/complied with, the discretionary relief could not have been granted. It could only have been granted, had the vendor given the clear undertaking or time line, for clearing
