IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (St.) NO. 5909 OF 2009 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1151 OF 2009. Kavita Madhavdas Nagpal ..... ..... ...Appellant. V/s Maneckshaw Fakirji Vajifdar d/h Dinyan Maneckshaw Vajifdar & Ors. ..... ..... ...Respondents. Mr.Rajiv Patil i/by Mr.Onkar Warange & Anant Kulkarni, Adv. for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 5th March, 2009. PC: The appellant instituted a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 12.22.86. The suit came to be dismissed and hence this appeal is filed. One of the issues framed by the trial court relates to the readiness and willingness of the present appellant to perform his part of contract. The said issue has been answered in negative holding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to show that he was in readiness all throughout to perform his part of contract. Though the agreement stipulates a condition that the sale deed has to be executed within four months the said stipulation would not by itself be the essence of the contract as it relates to immovable property. However after lapse of about two years when the defendant filed written 1 statement on 18.1.89 a categoric offer was made to the plaintiff that if he bonafidely wants to have sale deed executed in his favour he should deposit balance amount of consideration of Rs.4 lacs within 15 days from the date of filing of written statement. The plaintiff did not respond to the said offer made by the defendants in the written statement and belatedly after lapse of about 11 months moved an application seeking permission to deposit the amount. This is one of the strong circumstance to indicate that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to deposit the amount and thus a decree for specific performance of agreement cold not have been passed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. Perused the judgment of the trial Court. Same takes correct view of the matter. The agreement is of the year 1986. The relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Hence appeal is summarily dismissed. In view of disposal of appeal Civil Application No.1151/09 does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. 5.3.2009. 2