:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE SIDE SIDE SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO. 659 OF 2004 APPEAL NO. 659 OF 2004 APPEAL NO. 659 OF 2004 Mr. Ramankumar Vishwamitra Khosala. ... Appellant. V/s. Mr. Shantaram Devu Bhoir. ... Respondents. .... Mr. K.Y. Mandlik for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD J. : DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD J. : DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD J. 05TH 05TH 05TH JULY 2007. JULY 2007. JULY 2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . The suit for specific performance was filed nearly 9 years after the agreement of sale which was entered into on 12th March 1973. From the evidence of the Appellant it has emerged that during those 9 years he has taken no steps whatsoever to ensure the grant of permission by the competent authority for the sale of the agricultural land since the Appellant himself was a non-agriculturist. 2. In the circumstances, particularly having regard to the material admissions contained in the cross examination of the Appellant which are more :2: particularly extracted in paragraph 16 of the impugned Judgment, the conclusion of the Appellate Court cannot be regarded as erroneous. 3. No substantial question of law arises in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. -----