JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having appreciated the facts and the findings of the judgments passed by the Courts below, the only substantial question of law, which remains to be decided, is as follows: - “Whether the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the findings on the record as regards the readiness and willingness, as has been envisaged in the Explanation (i) and (ii) of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?” 2. The substantial question of law formulated by this Court at the time of this appeal on 20.12.2013 will be treated as otiose. 3. Having heard the learned counsel of either party on the afore-noted substantial question of law, the facts, emerging out from both the judgments passed by the Courts below, are that Om Prakash Bajaj was the tenant in a shop whose landlord was defendant Mahant Praveen Prakash. The construction of the shop was old. The defendant desired for dismantling the shop inter alia with other constructions and to construct a new market thereon. The registered agreement to sale dated 16.6.2005 was entered into between the parties which adverted that Rs.1.00 lakh was given by Mr. Bajaj to Mr. Mahant as an advance of total consideration of Rs.3.50 lakh, wherefor Mr. Bajaj was to be allotted a new shop after such construction within a year i.e. up till 15.6.2006. So, Mr. Bajaj vacated the shop in question with the hope and aspiration of getting a new one. Mr. Mahant, after demolition of said shop along with other adjacent constructions, did not erect the new shops, much less allocation of shop to Mr. Bajaj as per the agreement. So, Mr. Bajaj kept on emphasizing for the specific performance of contract but all went in vain. So, he was constrained to launch the Suit No.83 of 2006 on 24.8.2006 seeking specific performance. Learned Trial Judge, vide judgment dated 10.12.2008, decreed the suit directing Mahant Praveen Prakash to allot and make registry of a new shop after construction within six months of the judgment and it was also directed that the said shop should have a shutter and the electricity fittings in the name of plaintiff. 4. Per contra, the version of Mr. Mahant Praveen Prakash is that, in fact, agreement dated 16.6.2005 was not meant for sale of any shop but it was got executed with a deception keeping him in dark. 4. Per contra, the version of Mr. Mahant Praveen Prakash is that, in fact, agreement dated 16.6.2005 was not meant for sale of any shop but it was got executed with a deception keeping him in dark. Rather, Rs.1.00 lakh was given by Mr. Mahant Praveen Prakash to Mr. Om Prakash Bajaj in lieu of vacating the shop, in question. The Trial Court rejected the averments of Mr. Mahant Praveen Prakash and decreed the suit. 5. In appeal no.05 of 2009, learned Additional District Judge, though accepted the nature of deed dated 16.6.2005 as an agreement to sale, but at the same time, allowed the appeal expressing the view that the plaintiff did not ever remain ready with rest of consideration to make payments for execution of sale deed. 6. It has been held that the plaintiff only made the oral deposition before the Court that he reached the office of Registrar on 15.6.2006 in the morning and remained present there till evening in the wait of Mahant Praveen Prakash to reach and execute the sale deed, but did not file any written paper in support of this contention. The other premise which was made basis for allowing the appeal is that the plaintiff could not show sufficiently his readiness and willingness with all preparedness of cash in hand. 7. This Court does not agree with the findings arrived at by the learned Appellate Court in view of the ‘Explanation’ appended to Section 16(c) which contemplates that ‘where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court’. 8. That apart, while purchasing shop for consideration of Rs.2.50 lakh, a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh had already been paid. So, it was not such a huge amount wherefor the plaintiff was supposed to show the other deposits in his credit with some bank or any financial institution. Nobody can be expected to loose the means of earning just by failing to make arrangement of a sum of Rs.2.50 lakh. 9. As regards the preparedness in the office of Registrar, I find it is not desirable every time to expect from the person concerned for bringing a certificate from the Registrar office. His deposition on oath could not be shaken in this regard. 10. 9. As regards the preparedness in the office of Registrar, I find it is not desirable every time to expect from the person concerned for bringing a certificate from the Registrar office. His deposition on oath could not be shaken in this regard. 10. All told, I find every force in this appeal. The appeal is thus, allowed. The substantial question of law, as formulated above by this Court, is answered accordingly. The suit is decreed in the terms and mandate, as has been passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/First FTC, Haridwar in Original Suit No.83 of 2006, “Om Prakash Bajaj v. Mahant Praveen Prakash”. Mr. Mahant Praveen Prakash is directed to get the shop constructed within two months from today, instead of six months, and handover its possession to the appellant Om Prakash Bajaj immediately thereafter. The shop, so constructed, must be of the dimensions, as mentioned in the agreement dated 16.6.2005. It is further directed that the sale deed will be executed within two months failing which appellant Om Prakash Bajaj will get this shop constructed by his own investments and the sale deed will then be executed by the Court without payment of rest of consideration to the defendant. 11. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with LCR be sent back to the Court concerned for compliance.Rdang