JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 3.4.2006 passed in O.S.No.5651/1997 by the V Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, dismissing the suit. Parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. 2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under: The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract in respect of the suit schedule property contending that the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property; he agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff by executing agreement of sale dated 11.11.1992 for a consideration of Rs.1,33,250/- and the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- towards part consideration amount and that the plaintiff offered to pay a sum of Rs.3,252/- towards the balance consideration amount. It is further contended that when the plaintiff requested the defendant to receive the balance consideration amount and execute the registered sale deed in his favour, the defendant had refused to receive the balance consideration amount and failed to execute registered sale deed. Hence, cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of contract. 2.1. The defendant appeared and filed written statement admitting ownership of the suit schedule property and admitted that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement on 11.11.1992 for purchase of six and half sites out of 14 guntas of land belonging to him and that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- as advance to him and subsequently paid Rs.25,000/- on 14.2.1993 and that except the above payments, the plaintiff has not paid any amount to him. The defendant has contended that time being the essence of contact, the plaintiff did not complete the terms and conditions of the agreement by paying the balance amount within the stipulated period. In spite of expiry of time, the plaintiff has not made any attempt to pay the balance as per the terms of the agreement. Advance amount paid by the plaintiff has been forfeited due to non-performance of the contract by the plaintiff. Further, the defendant has never executed the acknowledgement of receipt on the agreement of sale on 28.7.1994, confirming sale of sites. Advance amount paid by the plaintiff has been forfeited due to non-performance of the contract by the plaintiff. Further, the defendant has never executed the acknowledgement of receipt on the agreement of sale on 28.7.1994, confirming sale of sites. Further, the defendant has denied that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and that he is due a sum of Rs.3,250/-. The defendant contended that the plaintiff has created forged agreement in continuation of the earlier agreement and also forged the signature of the defendant on the last page of the agreement by inserting typed matter alleging the transaction and confirmation and also the witnesses mentioned are unknown to the defendant. It was further contended that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 2.2. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant was agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,32,250/- and received an advance amount of Rs.75,000/- by executing an agreement of sale dated 11/11/1992? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant further received a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 14.2.1993 and Rs.20,000/- on 31.3.1993 and Rs.10,000/- on 28/7/1994? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was put in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the contract? 5. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged obstruction caused by the plaintiff for peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? 6. Whether the time is the essence of the contract? 7. Is plaintiff entitle the relief of specific performance of contract? 8. Is plaintiff entitle the relief of permanent injunction? 9. What order or decree? Additional Issues: 1. Whether the defendant proves that the signature appearing below the endorsement on the last page of the agreement is a forged signature, as contended by him in para 3 of the written statement? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit is filed within time? 2.3. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, got examined himself as PW1 and examined two witnesses as PWs 2 to 4 and got marked documents at exhibits P1 to P8. 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit is filed within time? 2.3. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, got examined himself as PW1 and examined two witnesses as PWs 2 to 4 and got marked documents at exhibits P1 to P8. The defendant examined himself as DW1. 2.4. The Trial Court after recording the evidence and considering the material on record held that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant has agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,33,250/- and received advance amount of Rs.75,000/- by executing an agreement of sale dated 11/11/1992 and further held that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant has received part consideration amount and further held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and further recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was put in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the contract and further failed to prove the alleged obstruction caused by the plaintiff for peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and further the Trial Court answered issues No.6, 7 and 8 against the plaintiff and the additional issues No.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court has filed this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant /respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that though the defendant has admitted execution of agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and has paid the consideration amount of Rs.1,30,000/-, only a meagre amount was required to be paid to the defendant. The plaintiff offered the defendant to receive the balance consideration amount but the defendant went on postponing. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The Trial Court has committed an error in answering issue No.3 against the plaintiff. The plaintiff offered the defendant to receive the balance consideration amount but the defendant went on postponing. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The Trial Court has committed an error in answering issue No.3 against the plaintiff. He further submits that the plaintiff has filed an application–I.A.1/2008 seeking prayer to refer the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1992 as per Ex.P1 to the forensic lab for the purpose of scientific examination of the admitted signatures in the vakalath and agreement of sale dated 11.11.1992. Hence, he prays to allow the application and consequently to allow the appeal. 5. None appeared for the respondent. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the plaintiff. 7. The points that arise for consideration are : i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract; ii) Whether the plaintiff has made out a ground to allow I.A.1/2008; iii) Whether the plaintiff has made out a ground that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is perverse and arbitrary? iv) What order and decree ? Re. Point No.1 : 8. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant has entered into an agreement of sale and agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.1,33,250/- in part performance of the contract. The plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- towards earnest money and it was agreed that the remaining amount be paid at the time of execution of the registered sale deed. The defendant has put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the contract. The plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and that the defendant did not perform his part of contract. 8.1. The defendant has put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the contract. The plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and that the defendant did not perform his part of contract. 8.1. The plaintiff in order to prove his case examined himself as PW1 and he has reiterated the plaint averments in his examination-in-chief and in the course of cross examination, he has clearly admitted that prior to the filing of the suit, he has not issued legal notice calling upon the defendant to accept the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.3,250/- and to execute a registered sale deed. Further, PW1 has admitted that there is no mention in page Nos.1 and 2 of the agreement regarding the site numbers agreed to be sold in his favour. The plaintiff has denied that he has forged the signature of the defendant which is marked as Ex.P1(h). 8.2. Further in order to prove the execution of the agreement of sale, the plaintiff examined the attesting witnesses as PW2 who has stated that the defendant has executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff as per Ex.P1 and also deposed that the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- towards earnest money and he has deposed that the defendant has executed agreement of sale in his presence and he has signed on Ex.P1. 8.3. Nothing has been elicited from this witness and also PW3, who is also one of the attesting witness to Ex.P1. He has reiterated what PW2 has stated in his evidence. 8.4. Defendant has admitted execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. However, the defence of the defendant is that the plaintiff did not comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The plaintiff has not paid balance consideration amount within time and further, the plaintiff was/is not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. From the perusal of the oral and documentary evidence thus it is clear that the plaintiff has not issued any legal notice calling upon the defendant to perform his part of contract by receiving balance consideration amount. Thus, the plaintiff has not complied the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Section 16 of the Act reads as follows : “16. Thus, the plaintiff has not complied the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Section 16 of the Act reads as follows : “16. Personal bars to relief: Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person: (a) xxxx (b) xxxx (c) who fails to 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. Explanation: (i) 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; (ii) the plaintiff must prove performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.” 8.5. Section 16(c) of the Act deals with personal bars to the relief. Specific performance cannot be enforced in favour of a person who fails to prove that he has performed or has always 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. 8.6. In the instant case, the plaintiff has failed to aver that he was always ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which was to be performed by him and further no evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to prove ‘readiness and willingness’. Section 16(c) of the Act mandates readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff and it is a condition precedent for obtaining the relief of specific performance. 8.7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of J.P. builders v. A Ramdas reported in (2010) 12 SCALE 400 held that the plaintiff must allege and prove continuous ‘readiness’ and ‘willingness’ to perform the contract on his part from the date of contract. The onus is on the plaintiff and Section 16(c) of the Act mandates the readiness and willingness for obtaining the relief of grant of specific performance. The onus is on the plaintiff and Section 16(c) of the Act mandates the readiness and willingness for obtaining the relief of grant of specific performance. At the cost of repetition, the plaintiff has failed to aver and prove that he has performed and has always been ready and willing to perform the essential part of the contract and the plaintiff has not complied with the requirement of the Specific Relief Act. Thus, in view of the above discussion, I answer point No.1 in the negative. Re. point No.2 : 9. The plaintiff has filed an application I.A.1/2008 before this Court and that in support of the application, he has filed an affidavit contending that the defendant has executed an agreement of sale dated 11.11.1992 and he has paid a substantial amount of Rs.1,30,000/-. It is further contended that the defendant has received balance consideration of Rs.25,000/- and has signed as per Ex.P1(h). It is contended that now the defendant has disputed the signature at Ex.P1(h) and hence, in view of the same, it is stated that the entire case is based on the signature at Ex.P1(h) contained in the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1992 and the Trial Court has dismissed the suit only on the ground of limitation and further that in view of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff has lost the valuable right. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff prays to refer the agreement of sale along with vakalath filed before the Trial Court to the forensic laboratory for the purpose of scientific examination of the admitted signature. 9.1. From the perusal of Ex.P1, it is noticed that there is an endorsement dated 14.2.1993 alleging that the plaintiff has paid an amount to the defendant and the defendant has endorsed as per Ex.P1(h). However, the defendant has denied the signature as per Ex.P1(h). In order to demonstrate that signature at Ex.P1(h) was forged by the plaintiff, the defendant filed an application i.e. I.A.VII for referring the disputed signature on the shara on the agreement of sale to the handwriting expert. However, the defendant has denied the signature as per Ex.P1(h). In order to demonstrate that signature at Ex.P1(h) was forged by the plaintiff, the defendant filed an application i.e. I.A.VII for referring the disputed signature on the shara on the agreement of sale to the handwriting expert. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections contending that the defendant has filed the application to protract the proceedings and it is contended that the plaintiff has examined the witnesses in order to prove the contents of the shara and they have spoken regarding the defendant’s signature in their presence and further that the Court can compare the disputed signature with his (defendant) signature. The Trial Court considering the objections filed by the plaintiff has rejected the application filed by the defendant vide order dated 13.2.2006. The said order has attained finality. Now, the plaintiff has filed the application seeking for the same relief. The present application is hit by the principles of res judicata in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Anr. ( AIR 2001 SC 1158 ) and the application filed by the plaintiff deserves to be rejected. In view of the above discussion, point No.2 is answered in the negative. Re. Point No.3 10. The Trial Court after consideration of the material on record, was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Hence, point No.3 is answered in the negative. 11. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order : ORDER : The appeal is dismissed.