*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9531/2009 Ramavatar Ramnivas Bangad (Decd.) and others. ..Petitioners ­VERSUS­ Hindurao Tukaram Nemishte (Decd.) and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.P.D.Dalvi, Advocate for the Petitioner. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 18th November, 2009. PC:­ 1 This is a petition filed by the original Plaintiffs challenging an order dated 05.08.2009 passed by the Trial Court rejecting an application moved by the Petitioners/ Plaintiffs seeking permission to deposit the balance amount of consideration in the Court. The Petitioners/ Plaintiffs had filed the suit for specific performance of contract. The suit was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners/ Plaintiffs filed an appeal and after allowing the appeal, the first Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court for dealing with the matter afresh by permitting the parties to lead further evidence. 2 It appears that with a view to show readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract, the Petitioners filed an *2* application at Exhibit­125 seeking permission to deposit the balance amount of consideration. The Court rejected the said application as pre­mature as the evidence was yet to be led after remand of the matter. 3 Truly speaking, an endeavour on the part of Petitioners/ Plaintiffs in moving an application at Exhibit­125 was to demonstrate their readiness and willingness to deposit the amount. The purpose is achieved by filing of the said application even though the same is rejected. Nonetheless the Petitioners will have to establish their readiness and willingness not only after remand of the matter but all throughout. The impugned order in no way causes any prejudice to the Petitioners. Hence, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. Writ Petition is summarily dismissed. (A.P. Deshpande, J)