JUDGMENT : The appellant is before this Court assailing the judgment dated 3.2.2010 passed in O.S. No. 930/2003. Since there is delay of 206 days in filing the appeal, Misc. Cvl. No. 11527/2011 is filed seeking condonation of delay. Notice on the same was ordered to the respondents, who though served have not chosen to appear and put forth their contentions herein. It is noticed that the respondents herein who were the defendants in the Court below had also not chosen to appear before the Court below. In that light, since there is no opposition to the application seeking condonation of delay and since we find that it is appropriate to take note of the contentions of the appellant, in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned. Misc. Cvl. No. 11527/2011 is allowed and the appeal is taken up for consideration. 2. A perusal of the case as put forth before the Court below would indicate that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 had entered into a sale agreement dated 21.8.2003 where under the appellant had agreed to purchase site Nos. 5 and 6 formed in Sy. No. 23/1 in Block 1 measuring 3,000 square feet for a sum of Rs.24,00,000/-. At that point of time, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as advance. Subsequent thereto the appellant had sought change in the site and accordingly a corner site in Block H-12 was agreed towards which additional sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was required to be paid. In that view, the total consideration was altered to Rs.29,00,000/- of which Rs.9,00,000/- was paid as advance in all. The balance of Rs.20,00,000/- was required to be paid and the registration was to be completed. 3. Since according to the plaintiff, the defendants had not come forward to execute the sale deed, she had filed the suit before the Court below seeking grant of the decree for specific performance. The defendants, as already noticed, had not appeared before the Court below. In that view, the Court below had formulated four points for its consideration which included the consideration relating to the sale agreement dated 23.9.2003, the advance paid thereunder and as to whether the plaintiff proves that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. 4. In order to establish the case of the plaintiff, she examined herself as PW1 and relied upon the documents Exs.P1 to P7. 4. In order to establish the case of the plaintiff, she examined herself as PW1 and relied upon the documents Exs.P1 to P7. In that light, though there was no cross-examination of the plaintiff, the plaintiff even in that event was required to establish that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and defendants had failed in that regard. The Court below in order to examine this aspect of the matter has referred to the evidence of the plaintiff as PW1 and had taken into consideration the terms agreed between the parties under the agreement of sale which was marked as Ex.P2. Having noticed that the balance of Rs.20,00,000/- was to be paid by the plaintiff in one lump sum, but the plaintiff was contending that the registration was to be made by paying a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- and the balance of Rs.9,00,000/- out of the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was to be paid in monthly installments of Rs.1,00,000/-, the Court below having examined the terms of the contract was of the opinion that the plaintiff was seeking to alter the terms agreed between the parties which by itself would indicate that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. In that light, the Court below was of the opinion that the plaintiff had not proved her case. Notwithstanding the same, the Court below taking note that the agreement had been entered into the parties and a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- had been paid by the plaintiff as advance has directed refund of the same with interest at 10% p.a. and if that being the position, when the consideration as made by the Court below is in accordance with law, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Court below. The appeal accordingly being devoid of merit stands dismissed.