1 sa361.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 361 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8226 OF 2010 Balaji Enterprises, through Sahebrao Baliram Pol, Age: 48 years, Occ: Service as Teacher, Mahatma Phule High School, Ganesh Nagar, Nanded. ...APPELLANT VERSUS Sambhaji s/o Vitthalrao Ghogare, died LRs. Balaji s/o Sambhaji Ghogare died through LRs. Usha w/o Balaji Ghogare, Age: 42 years, Occ: Household., R/o. HUDCO, Nanded and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. U.B. Bilolikar, Advocate for appellant - applicant. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2 sa361.10 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that, the suit was not maintainable against unregistered partnership firm. He further submits that, the appellant herein, all the time was ready to perform his part and therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below that original plaintiffs or defendants were not ready to perform their part and therefore, recourse to Section 29 of the Specific Relief Act, wholly unwarranted. At the cost of repetition, the Counsel for the appellant would submit that, the appellant all the time was ready to perform his part. Therefore, according to the Counsel for the appellant, second appeal deserves consideration 3. I have given due consideration to the Counsel for the appellant. Perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below and also grounds taken in the second appeal. 4. Coming to the first contention of the 3 sa361.10 Counsel for the appellant that, the suit which was filed against unregistered partnership, should not have been entertained, since Ganesh and Shankar were not added as party respondents to the suit and therefore, the said suit should not have been dismissed for non joinder of parties is concerned, in the cross examination of the defendant i.e. appellant herein, he has stated that, he entered into agreement to sell with the plaintiffs in his personal capacity and the partners in the deed of partnership i.e. Ganesh and Shankar have no concern with the agreement to sell dated 15-06-1983. Findings to that effect have been recorded in para-14 of the judgment of the trial Court. 5. The second contention of the Counsel for the appellant that, the appellant all the time was ready to perform his part, has been appreciated by both the Courts below and negated the said contention. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the said findings are perverse. Once 4 sa361.10 both the Courts below concurrently held that the appellant and respondents both were not ready to perform their part, the Court has rightly taken recourse to the provisions of Section 29 of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, from careful perusal of the grounds taken in the second appeal, none of the grounds appeals to this Court to entertain the second appeal. The second appeal does not raise any substantial questions of law for consideration. Hence, the second appeal stands dismissed summarily. Consequently, the civil application stands rejected. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/DEC11