(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No. 22 OF 2011. Sau. Trivenibai Ajabrao Dewade VERSUS Shri Vitthal Mahadeorao Kolhe ________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 21.01.2011. Heard Shri K.R. Lule, the learned Counsel for the appellant. The above Second Appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2010 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 147/2006 by the Additional District Judge, Wardha by which, the decree of specific performance passed in favour of the respondent herein/ original plaintiff, came to be confirmed. The appellant is the defendant in the Regular Civil Suit No. 196/1998 which was filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of agreement dated 28.01.1998. It is an undisputed position that the plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- out of the consideration of (2) Rs.1,33,000/- which was fixed and the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property and thereafter, inspite of the plaintiff having called upon the defendant from time to time to perform his part of the contract, the defendant though having received the notice in that behalf, refused to comply with the same. The plaintiff was, therefore, constrained to file the said suit. It is significant to note that in the said suit, the defendant did not file written statement, nor has led any evidence. The Trial Court on the basis of the material that was on record, decreed the said suit. The matter was carried in appeal by the defendant being Regular Civil Appeal No. 147/2006. In the said appeal the decree came to be confirmed. Both the Courts below have therefore, concurrently held the existence of the agreement and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract and the refusal of the defendant to perform his part. Having considered the findings of the Courts below, in my view, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd