AGK IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.381 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO.381 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO.381 OF 2008 M/s.Tirumala Construction & Ors. ...Appellants Versus. M/s.Trimurti Developers & Anr. ...Respondents Mr R.S.Desai with Mr Sameer R. Bhalekar for Appellants. Mr Rajesh Rathod i/by M/s.Bilwala & Co for Respondent No.1. Mr Snehal Shah i/by M/s.Wadia Ghandhy & Co for Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DATE DATE DATE : 22nd April, 2008. : 22nd April, 2008. : 22nd April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The learned Judge rightly refused interim reliefs in the facts of the present case. The suit is filed by the appellant for specific performance of MOU dated 23rd June, 2006 for the purpose of agricultural land. The total consideration was Rs.01,14,84,000/-. Rupees five lakhs was paid on the execution of the MOU. The balance of Rs.01,09,84,000/- was to be paid within three months of the execution of the MOU or on execution of the final Deed for development/FSI whichever was earlier. Admittedly, the balance amount was not paid. There is nothing to indicate that there was any readiness and willingness on the part of the appellant to pay balance consideration. 2. Added to this is the fact that the plaint does not even contain an averment regarding readiness or willingness. Nor was it suggested by Mr Desai that the plaint read as a whole implied readiness and willingness. Thus on the ground of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act alone no relief can be granted. : 2 : 2 : 2 : 3. Prima facie it does appear that the appellant was aware of the fact that there were disputes between the respondents and the persons from whom they have purchased the property, despite the fact that the filing of the suit itself is not referred to in the MOU. For instance the MOU records clearly that the final conveyance would be executed only upon the conveyance of the said land in favour of the respondents. There was no suggestion about the time span in this respect. Despite that it was agreed that the balance amount would be paid within three months. 4. Mr Desai stated that the appellant was willing to deposit the balance consideration today in Court. However, this would not indicate readiness and willingness at all material times. Further an agreement dated 18th June, 2007 has now been entered into in respect of the suit property by respondent No.1 with respondent No.2. The agreement is registered. It is quite possible that the consideration mentioned in the agreement between respondent Nos.1 and 2 is incorrect. The consideration stated is Rs.37 lakhs. It is difficult to believe this as the MOU which was earlier in time was for a sum of over rupees one crore. However, in view of the above facts, this would not be of any assistance to the appellant. 5. In the circumstances the Appeal from Order is dismissed. : 3 : 3 : 3 :