: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.846 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1017 OF 2008 Sau.Shobha Vinahak Dhepe ....Appellant V/s. Sau.Jyotsna Prakash Tamhankar ....Respondent Mr.S.A. Rajeshirke for the Appellant. Mr.A.S. Gadre for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. By an order dated 21.8.2008 the parties have been put to notice that the matter will be decided finally at the stage of admission. 2. Admit and heard finally. 3. The Appeal is filed against the order refusing interim reliefs for injunction in a suit for specific performance. 4. By an agreement dated 23.10.2007, the : 2 : Respondent/Defendant agreed to sell the suit flat to the Appellant/Plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and on other terms and conditions stipulated therein. A sum of Rs.3,75,000/- was paid in advance. 5. The learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract as the said amount of Rs.3,75,000/- was paid by different cheques and not by one consolidated cheque. The inference is, with respect, incorrect. Where the purchaser obtained the money for the purpose of honouring the obligation under an agreement to sell is not relevant. The fact is that the amount was paid. The Respondent encashed the said cheques. 6. It is not even necessary for a party seeking specific performance to keep the money ready at all the times to be tendered immediately. So long as it may be shown that the party is in a position and able to obtain the money to honour the obligation under the agreement, readiness and willingness must held to be established. 7. As a matter of fact, in the present case a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- had been transferred by the : 3 : Appellant from her own bank account in Ahmadnagar to the same bank in Nashik. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Appellant did not have money. I am inclined to accept the Appellant’s case that when she went to tender the same on 18.11.2007, the Respondent requested her to wait for a while as the renovation work in the flat purchased by her was still not complete. I am also inclined to accept the Appellant’s case that when she went to tender the payment to the Respondent on 22.1.2008 the Respondent requested her to wait till 15.2.2008. 8. On behalf of the Respondent, an affidavit of an advocate has been relied upon. The advocate states that it was agreed between the parties to have the agreement cancelled. I am not inclined atleast at this stage to believe his word. It is not without significance that he lives in the same building as the suit premises. It is the Appellant’s case that he is interested in purchasing the flat. This is an aspect which must await the hearing of the suit itself. Suffice it to state that whereas the advocate states in his affidavit that the stamp paper was purchased in the name of the Appellant, it is in fact purchased in the name of the Respondent. 9. The Appellant/Plaintiff has therefore made : 4 : out more than just a strong prima-facie case. 10. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set-aside. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Respondent is restrained from disposing of, alienating, encumbering, parting with possession of or creating any third party rights, title and/or interest in, to, upon or in respect of the suit premises.