1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO.162 OF 2009. SMT. MALTI WD/O MORESHWAR KELKAR. VS. SHRI AVINASH GAJANAN PATWARDHAN & OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri N.A. Vyawahare, Advocate for the appellant. Shri D. S. Shrimali, Advocate for the Respondent No.4. Coram : A.H. Joshi, J. Dated : 15th July, 2009. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. The plaintiff s suit for specific performance was dismissed and the said decree is confirmed by the first appellate Court. 2. What has impressed the Courts below while refusing the prayer for decree for specific performance is that the agreement seems to be oral and the chit relied upon Exhibit-107 as its evidence does not represent the terms such as details of property, consideration etc. 3. What is seen from the conduct of the parties is that the plaintiff was a tenant in the suit property. The alleged agreement was entered some time in March 1979. On what is shown by the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 informed the plaintiff to vacate the suit house as he wanted to sell it, by notice dated 2 30-7-79. The plaintiffs claimed to have replied it on 31-7-1979. The defendant no.2 has purchased the suit property by sale deed dated 12-10-1979. The plaintiffs claimed to have issued the notice claiming specific performance on 28-03-1980 i.e. after about 8 to 9 months, and then filed suit on 26-8-1980. 4. It is thus, clear that in spite of the full knowledge about the transaction in the offing, the plaintiff did not file a suit punctually. 5. Though the appellant avers that three substantial questions of law are involved, those are not seen involved. The document Exh.107 does not admit multiple interpretation as argued. 6. The Courts below held that due to vagueness in the agreement, the plaintiff has failed to prove the agreement of sale. 7. This Court finds that considering the laxity on the part of the plaintiff in filing a suit, refusal to exercise the discretion done by the Trial Court is not erroneous. 6. Appeal has no merit and is dismissed. JUDGE /Muley/