This is an appeal from a decree passed by the Assistant Distr­ict Judge (1) Silchar passed in T.A.No 115/74 allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit for specific performance of a contract to sell the suit land. 2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated. On 15.6.72 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Maina Devi, sister of the plaintiff and predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, for the purchase of the suit land at Rs. 800/-. The term of the agreement was that the plaintiff would pay a sum of Rs. 5001- as an advance, and that Maina would execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the balance of Rs. 300/- within a period of ten months, viz. on before April 15/16th, 1973. The plaintiff paid Rs. 500/- as agreed upon. As an evidence of the contract and receipt of Rs. 500/- Maina (since deceased) executed a deed dated 15.6.72 (Ext. 1). Maina died on 17.11.72. In pursuance of the contract, the plaintiff made various demands to the heirs of Maina, the defendants. The defendants have been avoiding execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on various pretexts. Therefore, the plaintiff instituted a suit on 28.3.73. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the agreement to sell the suit land. On appeal, the lower appellate Court set aside the decree and decreed the suit for specific performance of the contract to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. Hence this appeal. 3. Mr.S.K.Senapati, the learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that the plaintiff has failed to aver and prove that he has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, as provided under section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. To support his contention Mr. Senapati has relied on two decisions of this Court reported in AIR 1973 Gau 21 , Surrendra Chandra vs. Beikuntha, and AIR 1973 Gau 132 , Idris Ali vs. Abdul. 4. This Court in the above referred two cases, relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court, has held that readiness and willingness is to be alleged in the plaint and the allegations must be proved. 5. 4. This Court in the above referred two cases, relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court, has held that readiness and willingness is to be alleged in the plaint and the allegations must be proved. 5. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than term the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. 6. In the plaint, the plaintiff has not, however, stated the set of words "has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract." But the words "ready and willing" imply capacity to act as well as disposition (see Blacks' Law Dictionary). Therefore, the expression 'ready and willing' is a conclusion which is to be inferred from the facts alleged in the plaint. That being the position, the averment under section 16 (c) must be in substance indicating the capacity to act as well as disposition and, as such, the set of words "has always been ready and willing" used in section 16(c) are not always requited to re-write in the plaint. 7. In Ramesh Chandra vs. Chunilal, AIR 1971 SC 1238 , the Supreme Court has held : "Readiness and willingness cannot be treated as a straight-jacket formula. These have to be determined from the enti­rety of facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct of the party concerned". 8. It is also settled that the pleadings should receive a liberal construction, no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair splitting technicalities. Sometimes, pleadings are exp­ressed in words which may not expressly make out a case in accor­dance with strict interpretation of law, in such a case it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the substance of the pleadings to determine the question. It is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead the substance of the pleadings should be consi­dered. If any authority is required we may refer to Ram Sarup vs. Bisnnu Naraian Inter College, AIR 1987 SC 1243. 9. It is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead the substance of the pleadings should be consi­dered. If any authority is required we may refer to Ram Sarup vs. Bisnnu Naraian Inter College, AIR 1987 SC 1243. 9. Coming to the case on hand, in the plaint, the plaintiff has alleged that in spite of his demands the defendants have been avoi­ding execution of the sale deed on various pretexts, and that the plaintiff be allowed to deposit the balance of Rs.300/- in Court and the defendants be directed to receive the sum of Rs.300/. The averment of the plaintiff in the plaint shows that the plaintiff claimed the performance with preparedness to fulfill his obligations. This fact indicates that the plaintiff had a capacity as well as intention or inclination to perform his part of the contract. For these reasons it is concluded that the plaintiff has averred his readiness and willin­gness to perform his contract, viz, the requirements of section 16 (c) have been complied with. 10. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the plaintiff has proved the averment made in the plaint. The learned Assistant District Judge held that there is evidence to the effect that the plaintiff was all along ready to pay the balance. As already stated, the plaint was filed on 28.3.73 before the expir­ation of ten months. The plaintiff did not wait till April 15/15th, 1973, indicating there by his readiness and willingness. In Ramesh ' Chandra (supra) the Supreme Court observed. "The very fact that they promptly filed the suit shows their keenness and readiness in the matter of acquiring the plot by purchase." 11. In these view of the matter the findings of the learned Assistant District Judge are supported by the circumstance and materials on record. 12. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed. No costs.