JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - Mr. Vijay Jain appearing for the respondent, accepts notice. 2. Stay Application No.657/2019 Mr. Avin Chhangani, learned counsel for the appellants, pointing out from the covenants of the agreement dated 22.05.2012, argues that though the last date for making payment and getting the sale-deed executed was 22.07.2012, yet the plaintiff had not only failed to make remaining payment of Rs.1,50,000/- but had also failed to prove that he had contacted the appellant-vendor to execute the sale-deed while offering the consideration. He further argues that in terms of Clause (C) of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff was required to prove his readiness and willingness, prior to the date mentioned in the agreement, i.e. 22.07.2012. That apart, relying upon Ex.A/1, a receipt executed on 22.05.2012, learned counsel for the appellants argues that it is a contemporaneous receipt executed on the same day, i.e. 22.05.2012 by the appellants, in which no reference of the agreement to sale was mentioned and the amount of Rs.1 lakh paid to the appellant has been shown to be a loan. 3. Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - plaintiff submits that the trial court has passed a well reasoned order and the appellant had admitted in no ambiguous terms that the agreement dated 22.05.2017 was executed by them. He further argues that the contention of the appellant, as advanced, is untenable in view of the fact that the appellant No.2 - Virendra Singh, the executor of the agreement to sell and the receipt, is a practicing lawyer who cannot be deemed ignorant of law and rights. Learned counsel further contends that the date mentioned in the agreement, namely, 22.07.2012, is not the last date of performance of the agreement and the agreement in question, if read in its entirety, clearly shows that the said date (22.07.2012) is the date, by which if the defendant/ vendor does not execute sale-deed, the plaintiff-vendee would be entitled to get the same executed through intervention of the Court. 4. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the record, I am of the view that the appellants are not entitled to get a stay of execution of the decree, in view of the fact that the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is evident by the mere fact that the plaintiff had filed the suit immediately without wasting any time, on 01.08.2012, well within 10 days of the date (22.07.2012) mentioned in the agreement. That apart, the pleadings of the plaintiff, particularly in paras No.6 and 7 of the plaint, clearly evinces readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, inasmuch as he has specifically averred that on 28.07.2012, he had requested the vendor to execute the sale- deed. 5. This being the position, the stay application filed by the appellants is rejected. 6. It is, however, made clear that during the pendency of the present appeal, the respondent-plaintiff shall not transfer, alienate or create third party rights, qua the subject land.