IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.208 OF 1991 SECOND APPEAL NO.208 OF 1991 SECOND APPEAL NO.208 OF 1991 Smt.Pratibha Waman Bhave )..Appellant V/s. Manohar Dipak Bhave )..Respondent ---- Mr.Pramod J.Pawar for the appellant. Mr.K.Y.Mandlik for the respondent. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 7.10.2008. PC 1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the original defendant Pratibha Waman Bhave impugning judgment and orders passed by the two lower Courts. The trial Court decreed the suit of the original plaintiff and declared that the agreement dated 28.11.1978 executed by and between the plaintiff and the defendant was subsisting and further directed the defendant to specifically perform the agreement by handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit block no.8, 2nd floor of the building in Prajakta Co-operative Housing Society situated at Hissa No.11 in Brahmin society, Naupada, Thane, to the plaintiff within 2 months from the date of the decree. The defendant was granted liberty to withdraw the amount of price of the suit block deposited by the plaintiff in the Court at the time of delivering possession of the suit block to the : 2 : plaintiff. If the defendant failed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit block to the plaintiff within the time specified above, the plaintiff was at liberty to get the decree executed through the Court. 2. The defendant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate Court and that is how this appeal has been filed before this Court. 3. The only point which has been urged is that the amount of the suit block has been paid by the defendant into the account of the plaintiff and that the refund of the said amount as well as grant of specific performance were not permissible. There is no substance in this contention. The decree itself indicates that the defendant was entitled to refund of monies. Learned Advocate for the respondent points out that the amount so deposited in his account, has been deposited in the Court and since the decree provides for refund of money, there is no substantial question involved in this appeal. On the relevant part of the decree being pointed out, learned Advocate for the appellant states that no further orders are required to be passed. I find that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Therefore, Second Appeal stands dismissed. : 3 : (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)