1 rpst25472 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION ST.NO.25472 OF 2010 Kavita Madhavdas Nagpal ...Petitioner vs. 1 Maneckshaw Fakirji Vajifdar(deceased) 2 Dinyar Maneckshaw Vajifdar & Ors. ...Respondents Ms Deepa Ahuja for the Petitioner Mr.Mahendra Agavekar i/b Mandar Limaye for resp.no.3-A CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 5,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the review petitioner. The review petitioner is the original plaintiff who filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 12 th November 1986. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. This Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. The review is sought of the order dismissing the appeal. 2 The learned counsel for the Review Petitioner submitted that the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 do not require the appellant to deposit the balance consideration during the pendency of the suit. The learned counsel submitted that the third defendant died during the pendency of the suit and after the legal representatives of the third defendant were brought on record in the year 2006, on 24th November 2006, the balance consideration was deposited by the Petitioner. She submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of the record as delay in depositing the balance consideration is no ground to dismiss the suit. 3 I have considered the submissions. It is noted in 2 rpst25472 the order under review that on 18th January 1989, written statement was filed by the respondents-defendants in which an offer was made to the review petitioner- plaintiff that if the review petitioner deposits the balance consideration within a period of 15 days, the respondents-defendants will execute the conveyance. Admittedly, balance consideration was deposited on 24 th November 2006. Therefore, inference has been drawn that the review petitioner was not ready and willing to comply with his part of the agreement for sale. 4 In view of section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, grant of decree of specific performance is always discretionary. Considering the aforesaid conduct of the review petitioner-plaintiff, the trial Court did not exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant. There is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dismissing the appeal. Hence, there is no merit in the review petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Civil Application no.117 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE