MIS J.P. BUILDERS & ANR. v. A. RAMADAS RAO & ANR.

J.P. BUILDERS & ANR. v. A. RAMADAS RAO & ANR. 589 [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] after the appeal is admitted and special leave is granted, the appellants must show that exceptional and special circumstances exist, and that, if there is no interference, substantial and grave injustice will result and that the case has features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against on merits. So this Court may declare the law or point out the lower court's error, still it may not interfere if special circumstances are not shown to exist and the justice of the case on facts does not require interference or if it feels the relief could be moulded in a different fashion. c

46. The observations made in paras 15-20 of Taherakhatoon can be usefully applied to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand."

It is clear from the above decisions, even after issuance of o notice in the special leave petition and after grant of leave, irrespective of the nature of the subject matter, the appellants must show that exceptional and special circumstances exists and if there is no interference by this Court substantial and grave injustice will result and that the case has features of E sufficient gravity to warrant a decision from this Court on merits.

Conclusion

47Copy pinpoint47. In the light of the above discussion, more particularly, . the factual findings rendered by the trial Court and the Appellate F Court-High Court in respect of grant of decree for specific performance and application of principle of marshalling under Section 56 of the Transfer of Property Act, we are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived by the High Court. We have also gone through the elaborate order of the High Court G in review petitions filed by the appellants. As a matter of fact, after highlighting the jurisdiction under review, the Division Bench of the High Court had taken pains to discuss once again and rendered a finding on all aspects with which we fully agree. H

590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Inasmuch as we are confirming the impugned judgment of the High Court in toto, there is no need to refer the affidavit of undertaking filed by the first respondent herein and the objection raised by the appellants as to the contents of the same. Since we confirm the conclusion and ultimate decision 8 of the High Court, we grant further time of three months from today for deposit of the balance amount as directed by the High Court in paragraph 85. In case defendant Nos. 1 and 2 fail to comply with the said directions in executing the sale deed, the trial Court is directed to execute the sale deed incorporating C all the directions and observations made in the judgment of the High Court. Consequently, all the appeals are dismissed as devoid of any merit with no order as to costs.

R.P. I Appeals dismissed.