( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 402 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8580 OF 2010 Shrimantrao s/o. Kondibhau Deshmukh .. Appellant [original plaintiff] Versus Badu Khema Rathod (died) through LRs. & ors... Respondents [original defendants] Shri S.B. Yawalkar, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 23.06.2010 P.C. :- 1. This Second Appeal is filed by the original plaintiff whose suit for specific performance of contract was dismissed but defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were directed to pay amount of earnest money to the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 30.07.2008 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mantha while deciding Regular Civil Suit No. 4 of 2008. Said judgment and decree is confirmed in appeal by the District Judge-2, Jalna while deciding Regular Civil Appeal No. 191 of 2008 on 26.04.2010. ( 2 ) 2. The main reason for which the specific performance was refused is answer to issue No. 3 by the Trial Court, which was further confirmed in the appeal by the First Appellate Court in para 14 of its judgment. The Trial Court observed in para 8 of its judgment that no doubt, there was evidence of the plaintiff, in which he deposed that defendant Nos. 1 to 5 refused to execute sale deed in his favour as per agreement of sale. But, it is observed by the Trial Court that the agreement of sale was dated 01.10.1983 and thereafter defendant No.1 to 5 executed sale-deed in favour of defendant Nos. 6 to 9 on 21.07.1986. The suit was filed on 11.08.1986. During the said period of 34 months there was no evidence other than oral evidence of the plaintiff, to show that he requested the defendants to execute the sale-deed. It is stated that no date of such demand was mentioned nor any notice was given. The Trial Court was not satisfied with the oral evidence. 3. The First Appellate Court in para 14 of its judgment considered that after the agreement, no notice was given by the plaintiff to the defendants calling upon them to ( 3 ) perform their part of the contract and showed his readiness and willingness on his part. Simply, mentioning in affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract was not sufficient. It is also considered that the defendants did not enter into witness box. But the Court observed that it is for the plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness. 4. After considering the reasons, it cannot be said that the reasons given by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are perverse and not based on evidence. No substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. Therefore, this Second Appeal cannot be admitted. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. 5. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 8580 of 2010 does not survive. The Civil Application accordingly stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JUN10/sa402.10