JUDGMENT : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29th November 2014 passed by learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.175-A of 2014 by which, the appellant's suit for grant of decree of specific performance has been partly decreed to the extent of refund of advance amount paid by the plaintiff/appellant to defendant/respondent No.1. The main relief sought in the suit that the decree of specific performance be granted and consequential relief of declaring subsequent sale deed dated 11.3.2010 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3, have been refused. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree of specific performance of contract as also for declaring null and void, subsequent sale deed dated 11.3.2010 on the pleadings, inter alia, that defendant No.1 Vyapana Venkat Ramanna executed an agreement on 21.2.2009 in favour of appellant-plaintiff agreeing to sell the property (house and land) in dispute for a consideration of Rs.11 lakhs. It was also pleaded that the defendant No.1 received Rs.4 lakhs as advance. According to the plaintiff/appellant, under the agreement, it was stipulated that the plaintiff shall deposit Rs.5,24,339/- in the bank to clear the outstanding loan of defendant No.1 for which the property in dispute was mortgaged with the bank and thereafter, the defendant No.1 shall make available all revenue papers followed by payment of balance amount of Rs.1,75,661/- to be paid at the time of registration. It was also stipulated in the agreement that it would be the responsibility of the defendant No.1 to pay all the tax dues and outstanding to the Municipal Corporation, collect receipt and handover to the plaintiff. Further case of the plaintiff was that, even though, the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract under which he was required to pay Rs.5,24,339/- in the loan account of defendant No.1, the plaintiff was incapacitated due to inaction on the part of defendant No.1 because without the presence of defendant No.1 and disclosure of loan account, the plaintiff could not deposit the amount. According to the plaintiff, the bank in its reply to notice (Ex.P-9) stated that unless defendant No.1 is kept present, any deposit against the loan account would not be acceptable to the bank. According to the plaintiff, the bank in its reply to notice (Ex.P-9) stated that unless defendant No.1 is kept present, any deposit against the loan account would not be acceptable to the bank. Later on, when the plaintiff came to know that defendant has proceeded to sell the property to third party, taking the same as a cause of action, the plaintiff filed a suit. 3. The stand taken by the defendant No.1 in his written statement was that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract by depositing Rs.5,24,399/- in his loan account and no further payment was made by him. The plaintiff failed to act in accordance with the agreement. It was also the stand of defendant No.1 that, later on, property has been sold to defendant No.3. 4. In his written statement, defendant No.3 pleaded that he was bonafide purchaser. He purchased the property for a valuable consideration, obtained possession, his name has been recorded in various records and he is enjoying possession, therefore, the suit may be dismissed. 5. Learned trial Court framed as may as nine issues including issue regarding proof of the agreement dated 21.2.2009, receipt of Rs.4 lakh and whether the plaintiff was entitled to obtain possession under the agreement. Learned trial Court also framed an issue as to whether sale deed dated 11.3.2010 was liable to be declared null and inoperative and whether defendant No.3 was a bonafide purchaser. Issue relating to valuation and limitation as also non-joinder of necessary party were also framed. 6. Learned trial Court held that the suit was properly valued and it could not be proved that the suit was barred by limitation or was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. Further, on issues No.1 & 2, learned trial Court held proved that there was an agreement executed between the parties on 21.2.2009 and that the defendant No.1 had received Rs.4 lakh as advance from the plaintiff. However, on issues No.3, 4 & 5 learned trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It was held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was willing to deposit Rs.5,24,399/- in the loan account of defendant No.1 within the stipulated period which could not be done because of non-cooperation of defendant No.1 and refusal of the bank. It was held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was willing to deposit Rs.5,24,399/- in the loan account of defendant No.1 within the stipulated period which could not be done because of non-cooperation of defendant No.1 and refusal of the bank. Learned trial Court further held that though payment of Rs.4 lakh as advance is proved, in the absence of there being any documentary evidence in the form of acknowledgment of receipt, it was held that the plaintiff failed to prove that later on, he had paid Rs.1,75,661/- to the defendant. The suit, therefore, was partly decreed only to the extent of directing refund of Rs.4 lakh to the plaintiff. All other relief’s including relief for specific performance of contract was denied. 7. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment and decree particularly issues No.3, 4 & 5, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff argues that the plaintiff specifically pleaded that within one month of the execution of the agreement, he repeatedly requested defendant No.1 to come along with him to bank so that plaintiff could deposit Rs.5,24,339/-, as agreed between the parties, but defendant did not cooperate. It is submitted that as the plaintiff made specific averment and led convincing evidence of he having made his bonafide attempt to pay amount of Rs.5,24,339/- in the loan account of defendant No.1, it cannot be said that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract under the agreement. Other submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that, though, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded and also proved from the evidence of independent witness Rajesh Mourya (PW2) and Shashikant Kashyap @ Bunti (PW3) that the loan of Rs.1,75,661/-was paid in cash by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 on 20.8.2009, learned trial Court erred both in law and facts, in not relying upon the oral evidence only because there was no documentary evidence in the form of acknowledgment of receipt of the said amount. 8. Respondent No.1 despite service of notice has not appeared. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 & 3 would submit that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract in so far as his liability of payment of Rs.5,24,339/- is concerned. 8. Respondent No.1 despite service of notice has not appeared. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 & 3 would submit that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract in so far as his liability of payment of Rs.5,24,339/- is concerned. It is argued that the pleading and evidence in this regard are absolutely vague, unspecific and lacking in material particular details of the date on which the plaintiff approached defendant No.1 for facilitating payment of Rs.5,24,399/- in the bank. He would submit that, in fact, the plaintiff made no attempt and for the first time, he sent a notice as late as on 25.6.2009 (Ex.P-2) which was far beyond the stipulated period of one month as agreed to between the parties under the agreement dated 21.2.2009. According to him, time was the essence of the contract and therefore, failure on the part of plaintiff to perform his part of contract within the time stipulated dis-entitles him to seek specific performance of contract. It is further submitted that later on, the property has been now been sold to defendant No.3 for valuable consideration and the property continues to be in possession of defendant No.3 who is bonafide purchaser. Therefore, the discretion may not be exercised in favour of the plaintiff for grant of specific performance of contract even if it is found proved that the plaintiff was ready and wiling to perform his part of contract. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of th case. Following points arise for determination of this Court:- (A) Whether the plaintiff succeeded in proving that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and as such entitled to decree of specific performance of contract ? (B) Whether the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.3 on 11.3.2010 is liable to be declared void and inoperative ? (C) Whether in any case, even if decree of specific performance is not granted, plaintiff is entitled to refund of Rs.5,75,661/- ? 10. A person desirous of seeking a decree of specific performance is required to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract throughout the proceedings. (C) Whether in any case, even if decree of specific performance is not granted, plaintiff is entitled to refund of Rs.5,75,661/- ? 10. A person desirous of seeking a decree of specific performance is required to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract throughout the proceedings. Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short “ the Act”) clearly provides that specific performance of 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 terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. The requirement of law, well settled in plethora of decisions, is that the plaintiff has to make specific pleadings and then prove it by leading cogent and clinching evidence of either he having performed or his readiness and willingness to perform. If there is no specific pleading with regard to the performance, if any, or readiness and willingness, no decree can be granted in favour of such a person, as grant of decree of specific relief is a discretionary relief. We may hasten to add here that the settled legal position that even if it is proved that there was an agreement and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and that it would be lawful to do so, yet the Court may exercise discretion under Section 20 of the Act to refuse to grant specific performance. 11. Keeping in view the legal requirements of specific pleadings and proof, we shall now examine the aspect of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff with reference to the specific terms of agreement. 12. Execution of agreement dated 21.2.2009 has been found proved by learned trial Court. The agreement (Ex.P-1) stipulates that the plaintiff shall pay Rs.5,24,399/- in the bank account and, thereafter, when the property is released from mortgage, upon completion of documents necessary for registration, balance amount of Rs.1,75,661/- would be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. 12. Execution of agreement dated 21.2.2009 has been found proved by learned trial Court. The agreement (Ex.P-1) stipulates that the plaintiff shall pay Rs.5,24,399/- in the bank account and, thereafter, when the property is released from mortgage, upon completion of documents necessary for registration, balance amount of Rs.1,75,661/- would be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. What is important to note is that under the agreement, it has been clearly stipulated that the steps will be required to be taken within a period of one month so that the sale deed is executed within two months either in favour of the plaintiff or any other person as nominated by the plaintiff. The relevant part of the agreement containing stipulation of essential terms of the agreement is reproduced herein-below:- ^^;g dh of.kZr lEifRr cSad vkWQ bankSj fcykliqj esa ca/kd j[kh gqbZ gS ftldh cdk;k jkf'k yxHkx 5]24]339-00 :i;s ¼ikap yk[k pkSchl gtkj rhu lkS mUrkyhl :i;s½ gS mDr jkf'k dks Øsrk }kjk cSad esa tek djk;k tk;sxkA cSad esa lEifRr ca/kd eqDr gksus ds mijkar ,oa jftLVªh gsrw yxus okys dkxtkr Ikw.kZ gksus ds mijkar Øsrk lkSns dh 'ks"k cpr jkf'k yxHkx 1]75]661-00 :i;s ¼,d yk[k iNgRrj gtkj N% lkS bdlB :i;s½ iath;u ds le; eq>s foØsrk i{k dks nsxsaA ;g fd leLr dk;Zokgh ,d ekg ds Hkhrj iw.kZ djk;h tk;sxh ftlls Øsrk lEifRr dk iath;u vius i{k esa vkt fnukad ls nks ekg ds Hkhrj iw.kZ djk ldsA lEifRr dk iath;u Øsrk ds uke ij vFkok Øsrk ftuds uke ij dgsaxs mlds uke ij eq>s foØsrk }kjk lEifRr dk iath;u dj fn;k tk;sxkA ;g fd esjs }kjk jftLVªh gsrq yxus okys leLr nLrkost ;Fkk chŒ 1 [kljk] 22 fcUnq QkeZ] Mk;olZu [kljk] uxj fuxe dh VSDl jlhn bR;kfn leLr miyC/k djkdj fn;s tk;sxsaA ;g fd jftLVªh iwoZ lEifRr dk cdk;k uxj fuxe VSDl] fctyh fcy ikuh fcy ,oa Mk;olZu VSDl ,oa vU; leLr 'kkldh; v/kZ'kkldh; fcyksa dk Hkqxrku djus dh lkjh tokcnkjh eq>s foØsrk dh gksxh ,oa iath;u iwoZ mDr leLr ns;rkvksa dk Hkqxrku esjs }kjk iVk dj mldh jlhn Øsrk dks lkSai nh tk;sxhA** 13. Thus, one of the most essential term of contract was that the plaintiff was required to deposit Rs.5,24,339/- in the loan account of defendant No.1. Thus, one of the most essential term of contract was that the plaintiff was required to deposit Rs.5,24,339/- in the loan account of defendant No.1. Moreover, as the entire steps were required to be taken, be it deposit of money in the loan account or collection of revenue documents, clearing of tax dues and payment of balance amount, within a period of one month from the date of agreement, meaning thereby that time was the essence of contract. It has, therefore, to be seen whether the plaintiff has averred and proved regarding performance of that part of contract which was his liability to perform. 14. It has been pleaded in para-7 of the plaint that the plaintiff asked defendant on many occasions to give information regarding B-1 and 22 Points information and also for remaining present in the bank for payment of balance amount in the loan account, but defendant avoided due to which, the plaintiff could not deposit the outstanding loan in the bank. The plaintiff, however, has not made any specific averments as to when he approached the defendant no.1, much less, a specific averment that he approached defendant to come along with him and remain present in the bank for facilitating deposit of Rs.5,24,339/- in the loan account of defendant No.1. It was incumbent on the part of the plaintiff to make specific averment consistent with the requirement of the agreement and not a vague and unspecific pleading of he having approached defendant number of times. The plaintiff could succeed only when there was a specific averment with regard to date on which he approached defendant coupled with specific averment that he had approached defendant to come along with him to bank and remain present for deposit of the amount of Rs.5,24,339/- in his loan account. With regard to performance of this essential term of contract, which admittedly was the liability of the plaintiff, except what was stated in para-7 of the plaint, there is no specific averment. 15. If we look into the evidence of plaintiff Ambika Prasad Kashyap who has been examined as PW1, his evidence is blissfully vague and does not come to his aid at all to say that he succeeded in proving that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract in accordance with terms of the contract. 15. If we look into the evidence of plaintiff Ambika Prasad Kashyap who has been examined as PW1, his evidence is blissfully vague and does not come to his aid at all to say that he succeeded in proving that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract in accordance with terms of the contract. In his affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC, the plaintiff Ambika has stated in para -6 that the defendant was asked to provide documents relating to B-1 and 22 Points information and also remain present in the bank on many occasions but he avoided due to which the plaintiff could not make payment in loan account of defendant. This plea is replica and verbatim reproduction of the averment made in para-7 of the plaint, which suffers from those very defects of vagueness which we have already noted herein-above while reading the plaint. In his cross-examination also, Ambika Prasad (PW1) has failed to give specific date, much less, any specific date within the period of one month from the date of execution of agreement i.e. on or before 21.2.2009, of he approaching defendant and requiring him to come along to the bank and defendant refusing or avoiding to accompany the plaintiff to the bank. Curiously enough, we find that in para -23 of the cross-examination, Ambika Prasad (PW1) himself has stated that he had gone to the bank and checked the loan account of the defendant on 15.2.2009 and it was disclosed that Rs.6,24,399/- was outstanding towards repayment of loan against defendant No.1. Agreement between the parties was executed on 21.2.2009. We have noticed that stamp paper (Ex.P-1) itself was purchased on 20.2.2009. It is thus clear that all the recital were prepared in stamp document on or after 20.2.2009. If on plaintiff's own showing, it had come to his notice and knowledge that the total amount of Rs.6,24,339/- remained outstanding in loan account of the defendant, why and under what circumstances, the plaintiff agreed that he would be depositing Rs.5,24,339/- only in the loan account of defendant No.1. If on plaintiff's own showing, it had come to his notice and knowledge that the total amount of Rs.6,24,339/- remained outstanding in loan account of the defendant, why and under what circumstances, the plaintiff agreed that he would be depositing Rs.5,24,339/- only in the loan account of defendant No.1. Be that as it may, in response to a question as to whether the defendant paid the loan amount in the bank within 3 months from the date execution of agreement, plaintiff refused that when he approached the Bank, he was told that loan amount may be repaid only by the debtor and not by any other person and this fact was told by him to the defendant that repayment of loan would be acceptable to the bank only in his presence and he may accompany him to the bank so that he may pay the balance amount. However, there is no specific averment on which date the plaintiff asked defendant to go to the bank. In para-24 of his cross-examination, plaintiff admits that he does not recollect when he had first approached the bank. He then says that within 15 days of the agreement, he had asked the defendant to accompany him and go to the bank. He then also admits that he has failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that he had taken steps for payment of amount within one month. In para-27 of his cross-examination, he further admits that a notice was sent by him on 25.6.2009 which was replied by defendant No.1 Vyapana Venkat on 29.6.2009, followed by another notice (Ex.P-6) sent by the plaintiff on 4.7.2009 which does not contain any recital that the plaintiff had approached defendant No.1 for payment of amount in the bank. In para 29 of his cross examination, he admits that under the agreement, loan amount was required to be paid by him within one month. 16. We also find that in the two notices sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, one notice dated 4.7.2009 (Ex.P-6) and another notice dated 10.8.2009 (EX.P-10), there is no averment that prior to issuance of these notices, the plaintiff had ever approached the defendant with a request to accompany him to the bank to facilitate the payment of Rs.5,24,339/-. 17. We also find that in the two notices sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, one notice dated 4.7.2009 (Ex.P-6) and another notice dated 10.8.2009 (EX.P-10), there is no averment that prior to issuance of these notices, the plaintiff had ever approached the defendant with a request to accompany him to the bank to facilitate the payment of Rs.5,24,339/-. 17. From the analysis of the evidence and the pleadings made by the plaintiff, we have no hesitation to hold that not only the plaintiff has made a vague pleading with regard to performance of his part of contract but he has utterly failed to prove by clinching and reliable evidence that he had offered to pay Rs.5,24,339/- within one month of date of execution of agreement and for that purpose, he had approached the defendant within one month to accompany him to the Bank so that the balance amount could be paid. It appears that for the first time, the plaintiff made an attempt by sending a notice dated 25.6.2009 which was far beyond the period of one month. 18. In view of the above, we have to conclude that the plaintiff failed to aver and prove his readiness and willing to perform his part of contract or having performed his part of contract in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Even though, it has been found by learned trial Court, to which no cross-objection has been filed by the defendant that there was an agreement executed between the parties on 21.2.2009, upon failure of the plaintiff to prove statutory requirement of averment and proof in terms of Section 16 (c) of the Act, no decree could be granted in favour of the plaintiff. We therefore affirm the finding of learned trial Court in that regard. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned trial Court directed refund of Rs.4 lakh only whereas the plaintiff/appellant has not only pleaded but proved by the evidence of Rajesh Mourya (PW2) and Shashikant Kahshyap @ Bunty (PW3) that after payment of Rs.4 lakh, further amount of Rs.1,75,661/- was also paid. We find that learned trial Court has disbelieved the plaintiff's case of having paid further amount of Rs.1,75,661/- in the absence of there being any acknowledgment of receipt produced and proved by the plaintiff. We find that learned trial Court has disbelieved the plaintiff's case of having paid further amount of Rs.1,75,661/- in the absence of there being any acknowledgment of receipt produced and proved by the plaintiff. Considering that the amount was not small one and huge amount, finding of learned trial Court in this regard that in the absence of there being any acknowledgment of receipt, plaintiff has failed to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he had also paid Rs.1,75,661/- does not warrant any interference. 20. In the result, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. 21. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Let appellate decree be drawn.