( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 681 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4715 OF 2005 Sugrabegum w/o. Sandu Patel .. Appellant Versus Syed Shabbir s/o. Syed Jalal & ors. .. Respondents Shri Milind K. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vinod Thole, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 11.06.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri Milind K. Deshpande for the appellant and Adv. Shri Vinod Thole for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. This is an appeal preferred by the original plaintiff to seek specific performance of sale which was entered into by the appellant with respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is not disputed that the property is originally belonging to respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It has come in the ( 2 ) evidence that only respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have signed on the agreement of sale. Respondent No.2 has not signed on it. The First Appellate Court refused to grant specific performance merely on the ground that respondent No.2 has not signed. But the Trial Court has also considered issue No.3, which is regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform her part of contract. In para 17 of the Trial Court judgment, it is observed that after agreement of sale, from 30.07.1994 to 03.11.1997 no efforts were made by the appellant/plaintiff for getting the sale-deed executed. It is also noted that as per agreement, it was settled between the parties that if permission was required for sale, it would be obtained. Permission was required because the suit land was under command area and absolutely no efforts were made for getting said permission. In view of the matter it is held that plaintiff was not ready to perform her part of the contract. There is nothing to show that this conclusion is not based on evidence or is in any way wrong. When the plaintiff has failed to prove that she is ready and willing perform her part of the contract, she is not entitled to specific performance in view of ( 3 ) Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. 2. In the circumstances no substantial question of law arises. The view taken by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is reasonable. In this view of matter the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. 3. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, Civil Application No.4715 of 2005 does not survive. The Second Appeal stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa681.05