1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 141 of 2009 [Rupchand S. Rahangdale Vs. Markant Y. Rahangdale & another] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.M. Wankhede, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. R.K. Borkar, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 13th April, 2009. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. A.M. Wankhede for the appellant and learned Adv. Mr. R.K. Borkar for the respondents. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by learned District Judge  I, Gondia, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2005, whereby the Judgment and Decree of Trial Court was confirmed by dismissing the appeal. 3. Plaintiff s suit was for specific performance, with an alternate prayer for refund of consideration. 4. The suit was decreed for refund of 2 consideration, and was dismissed as to prayer for a decree for specific performance. 5. Agreement of Sale is dated 9th February, 2001. Permission for sale of suit property was granted on 26th March, 2002. The plaintiff, in fact, failed to call upon and persuade the defendants to execute the sale-deed. 6. Trial Court has observed that in the notice issued by the plaintiff, he has nowhere stated that he has approached the defendants on 8th October, 2003 to get the sale-deed executed, and that the defendant no.1 has refused to do so. Even any evidence in support of this plea is not brought on record. 7. The learned Appellate Judge has discussed the evidence, and held that readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff is not proved. 8. These findings of fact are challenged in this Second Appeal. 9. Reliance is placed on Substantial Questions of Law as formulated by the appellant. 10. This Court has perused the grounds in which it is urged that the contents of Paras 9 and 10 of the Judgment of First Appellate Court do not reconcile. 3 11. Learned Adv., for the appellant was, therefore, called upon to explain as to which is the finding contradictory to one another, which the learned Adv., is not able to explain. 12. Other grounds have a bearing on question of fact as to whether the finding that plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform contract is correct. 13. It is not the argument that any illegality has crept in, in the process of appreciation of evidence. Without arguing any legal issue, the finding is debated as incorrect. This being a question of fact, the finding on facts is final at the level of the First Appellate Court. 14. The Substantial Questions of Law, so styled in the Appeal Memo, are not involved in the case. 15. In these premises, appeal has no merit, and is accordingly dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 4