1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 76/2010 (Ramkrishna Co-operative Housaing Society Ltd. VERSUS Aruna @ Arpita Vallabhram Trivedi) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri D.G. Paunikar, counsel for the appellant. Shri R.V. Khaparde, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 18, 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract. An agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant for sale of property on 11.04.1974. The sale-deed was to be executed on or before 15.04.1975. However, the respondent-defendant granted extension of time for getting the sale-deed executed. Before 15.04.1975, the Urban Land Ceiling Act came into force and it was necessary to acquire the exemption certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. The necessary application was made in that regard. Nothing happened in the matter from the year 1976 till the year 1997 when the plaintiff-Society filed the present suit for specific performance of contract. 2 Both the Courts rightly held that the plaintiff had slept over the matter for almost twenty years and woke up to seek a specific performance of contract after a lapse of twenty years when the exemption certificate was granted by the Urban Land Ceiling Authority in the year 1997. The Courts considered that the prices of the properties had increased enormously between the year 1974 and 1998 when the plaintiff-society sought a decree for specific performance of contract. The Courts considered the fact that there was nothing to show that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract from the year 1976 till the institution of the suit in the year 1998. Since the relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief, both the Courts by exercising the discretion in a judicious manner dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff- society for specific performance of contract. It appears that the appellate Court has, however, inadvertently stated in the operative part of the judgment that the appeal is allowed though it appears from the findings recorded by the first appellate Court and the second clause of the operative part of the order that the first appellate Court intended to dismiss the appeal and had in fact dismissed the appeal and the mistake was inadvertent. 3 The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record, they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE