:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.190 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.190 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.190 OF 2008 Prabhakar Gangadhar Thorat ...Appellant. v. Dilip Motiram Nere & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.S.P.Thorat , adv. for the Appellant. Mr.P.B.Shah i/by Jayendra D. Khairnar , advs. for the Respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 7th July, DATE: 7th July, DATE: 7th July, 2008. 2008. 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent no.2/original defendant no.2. None for the respondent no.1, who is original defendant no.1. Perused the copy of the plaint as well as the judgments delivered by both the Courts. 2. According to the plaintiff, he and the defendant no.2 had entered into an agreement with the defendant no.1 for purchase of plot no.10 admeasuring 500.62 sq.mtrs. out of Survey No.29 situated within the territorial limits of Municipal Corporation, Nashik. Agreement had taken place sometimes in 1995 and the consideration amount was Rs.2,18,540/-. Out of that, the defendant no.1, the owner of the land, had received an amount of Rs.1,27,000/-. This amount was paid jointly by the plaintiff and defendant no.2. However, :2: when the plaintiff approached the defendant no.1 for specific performance of the contract, there was no response. He also issued notice by the Registered Post on 10-8-1999 but there was no reply. Later on, it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 had executed sale deed about the same land in favour of the defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 assured to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of half of the plot but he did not keep the promise. According to the plaintiff, the land, which was initially marked as plot no.10 was finally given plot no.1 by the Municipal Corporation at the time of approval of final layout plan. Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit to the extent of half share in the said plot. 2. The defendant no.1 did not file written statement but the defendant no.2 contested the suit by filing written statement. He denied that the piece of land, which was marked as plot no.10 in the draft plant is now given plot no.1 in Final Approved Plan. According to him, when the Final Layout Plan was prepared, the area of plot no.10 was reduced to 198 sq.mtrs. from original proposed area of 500 sq.mtrs. and the plaintiff was not interested in the same. As the defendant no.2 was interested in purchase of the plot, he purchased the plot no.1 from the defendant no.1. That plot no.1 was distinct and different from the plot no.10 about which agreement had taken place. :3: In view of this, he contended that the plaintiff could not get the decree for specific performance about the plot no.1. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. He preferred Civil Appeal No.240 of 2006. That appeal was also dismissed by the District Court, and, therefore, he filed the Second Appeal. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings that land bearing plot no.1, which was purchased by the defendant no.2 is distinct and at a long distance from the plot no.10, which was initially agreed to be purchased by the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 jointly from the defendant no.1. As there was no agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of plot no.1, it can not be said that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in respect of that plot. The Appellate Court has minutely dealt with the location of plot nos.1 and 10 and came to conclusion that the plot no.10 in the draft plan is totally different from the plot no.1 in the final layout plan approved by the Municipal Corporation. In view of the facts noted above, no substantial question of law is involved in the matter. 4. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed summarily. As the appeal itself has been disposed off, Civil Application No.516 of 2008 does not survive and :4: stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)