As per case facts, the defendant-company agreed to sell plots to the plaintiff in 1963. After initial payments, the defendant's failure to develop the colony and obtain approvals led to ... significant delays. The defendant's claim of allotment cancellation was rejected in previous litigation where the plaintiff secured a declaration and injunction, with courts ruling specific performance premature at that stage. After the earlier litigation concluded, the defendant continued to defer performance. The plaintiff then filed the current suit for specific performance. The question arose whether this suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC or limitation, and if specific performance should be denied due to price escalation or lack of plaintiff's readiness and willingness, given the defendant's defaults. Finally, the High Court affirmed the specific performance decree, holding the suit was not barred by previous litigation or limitation, and the plaintiff showed readiness. It ruled that price escalation does not deny performance where the defendant caused delay, directing an equitable additional payment and allowing for an alternative plot.