Order : KULDEEP MATHUR, J. 1. The present First Appeal has already been admitted for final hearing by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2025. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, arguments on Stay Petition No. 2273/2025 were heard on 06.11.2025. 3. The instant First Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, in Civil Original Case No. 43/2013, titled “LRs of Manoj & Anr. v. LRs of Laxmilal.”, whereby the suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 20.11.2010 was decreed in favour of the respondents–plaintiffs. 4. Brief facts as pleaded before the learned trial Court on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs are that Plot No. 40 situated in Block ‘D’ of Sukhariya Nagar, Nathdwara, was agreed to be sold by the appellant - defendant to the respondents–plaintiffs for a total consideration of Rs.21,51,000/- (Rupees Twenty-One Lacs Fifty-One Thousand) through a sale agreement dated 20.11.2010. The appellant - defendant received an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) as earnest/advance money at the time of execution of the above agreement. Subsequently, an additional sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) was paid in cash to the defendant as per the agreement between the parties. Thereafter, on 15.01.2011, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) was paid by the respondents - plaintiffs to the defendant’s son, Yashraj Soni, towards part performance of the agreement. Thus, in all, the respondents–plaintiffs paid a total sum of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs) to the appellant - defendant. In the plaint, it was averred that the respondents–plaintiffs had always been ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration; however, the appellant - defendant deliberately adopted delaying tactics in order to avoid receipt of the remaining amount, as they had been approached by third parties offering a higher price for the property in question. In these circumstances, the respondents–plaintiffs published a public notice in a leading daily newspaper on 29.01.2012 through their advocate, expressing their intention to complete the sale agreement dated 20.11.2010 and also got served a legal notice dated 30.01.2012 upon the appelalnt - defendant seeking specific performance of the agreement. In response, the appellant - defendant, vide reply dated 02.02.2012, informed the respondents–plaintiffs that the sale agreement stood cancelled due to their failure to pay the balance consideration within two months from the date of the agreement. 5. In response, the appellant - defendant, vide reply dated 02.02.2012, informed the respondents–plaintiffs that the sale agreement stood cancelled due to their failure to pay the balance consideration within two months from the date of the agreement. 5. In his written statement, the appellant - defendant admitted the execution of the sale agreement dated 20.11.2010, but contended that only Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) was paid at the time of the agreement, and not Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) as claimed. The defendant further denied the payments of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) and Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs), alleging that the same were never made. It was further pleaded that time was of the essence of the contract, and as the respondents- plaintiffs failed to pay the balance consideration despite oral reminders on several occasions, the agreement automatically stood cancelled after expiry of two months from date of its execution. It was contended that the appellant - defendant had repeatedly requested the plaintiffs - respondents to pay the balance consideration, but they neither paid nor showed their willingness to pay, thereby breaching the agreement by their own conduct. 6. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following six issues: “1. Whether the respondents–plaintiffs paid an advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the defendant at the time of executing the agreement dated 20.11.2010 for the sale of the plot described in paragraph 1 of the plaint, and subsequently paid Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- towards performance of the agreement, thereby totalling Rs.17,00,000/- paid to the defendant? …………… Respondents– plaintiffs 2. Whether the respondents–plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and pay the balance consideration? ……………… Respondents–plaintiffs. 3. Whether only Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to the defendant and the balance of Rs.16,51,000/- remained outstanding? ……………… Defendant 4. Whether, since time was the essence of the contract, the respondents–plaintiffs themselves breached the agreement by failing to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period, thereby disentitling them to specific performance? ……………… Defendant 5. Whether Yashraj Soni is a necessary party to the suit? ……………… Defendant 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? ……………… Defendant” Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court decided Issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondents–plaintiffs, and Issues No. 3 to 6 against the appellant - defendant. ……………… Defendant 5. Whether Yashraj Soni is a necessary party to the suit? ……………… Defendant 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? ……………… Defendant” Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court decided Issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondents–plaintiffs, and Issues No. 3 to 6 against the appellant - defendant. Consequently, the appellant - defendant was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondents–plaintiffs within three months from the date of order, and to get it registered in their or their nominee’s name. The respondents– plaintiffs were directed to pay the outstanding balance of Rs.4,51,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs and Fifty Thousand) along with interest at 9% per annum as per the terms of the agreement. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant–defendant, Shri Nikhil Ajmera, vehemently contended that under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, readiness and willingness of the purchaser is a mandatory requirement for grant of specific performance. In the instant case, the learned Trial Court, without any cogent reasoning for non-payment of the balance consideration, decided the said issue in favour of the respondents - plaintiffs. Since time was essence of the contract, it automatically stood cancelled, as respondents – plaintiffs failed to perform their part of contract and did not make payment of the balance amount within two months from the date of sale agreement. However, the plaintiffs – respondents did not seek any declaratory relief challenging the said termination. In absence of such a prayer, the suit for specific performance was not maintainable. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court passed the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2025 by overlooking material evidence and without properly applying the law, and hence, the same deserves to be stayed. 8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant–defendant placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in - ‘I.S. Sikandar (D) by Lrs. v. D. Subramani & Ors.’ reported in (2013) 15 SCC 27 . - M/s ABT Limited v. T.R.K. Sarawathy & Ors. reported in (2025) 0 AIR (SC) 44 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents–plaintiffs submitted that the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.05.2025 has been passed after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence, and being a well-reasoned order, warrants no interference. - M/s ABT Limited v. T.R.K. Sarawathy & Ors. reported in (2025) 0 AIR (SC) 44 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents–plaintiffs submitted that the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.05.2025 has been passed after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence, and being a well-reasoned order, warrants no interference. It was contended that out of the total consideration of Rs.21,51,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs and Fifty One Thousand), the plaintiffs - respondents had already paid Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs) to the appellant - defendant on various dates, but despite service of notice, the appellant - defendant deliberately avoided execution of the sale deed and sent a false and baseless reply in order to rescind the contract. He further submitted that under Clause 3 of the agreement dated 20.11.2010, the balance amount was to be paid within one month at the time of execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession, or whenever within that period the purchasers required the appellant - defendant to do so. However, despite the respondents - plaintiffs readiness and willingness, the appellant – defendant remained negligent. No notice, as contemplated under Clause 3, was ever issued by the defendant for execution of the sale deed. 10. Learned counsel further drew attention to Clause 5 of the sale agreement dated 20.11.2010, which requires the seller of the property, if ready and willing to execute the sale deed, to serve a written notice upon the purchaser in case of default in payment of the balance amount. Only after such notice, and continued default thereafter, could the seller cancel the agreement and forfeit the earnest money. The Trial Court found that no such notice was ever served, which clearly indicated that the appellant - defendant himself failed to perform his obligations. There being no clause for automatic cancellation of the agreement, the argument of the contract having stood terminated automatically was rightly rejected. 11. On the strength of the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondents–plaintiffs urged this Court to reject the stay petition. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 13. Clauses 3 and 5 of the sale agreement dated 20.11.2010 are reproduced below for ready reference: 14. 11. On the strength of the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondents–plaintiffs urged this Court to reject the stay petition. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 13. Clauses 3 and 5 of the sale agreement dated 20.11.2010 are reproduced below for ready reference: 14. Upon a careful perusal of the material available on record and the impugned judgment dated 17.05.2025, this Court finds that a finding of fact has been recorded by the Trial Court that Rs.17,00,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs.21,51,000/- had been paid by the respondents – plaintiffs to the appellant - defendant. The Trial Court, after examining the terms of the agreement and the evidence on record, rightly held that the appellant - defendant at no stage demonstrated readiness or willingness to execute the sale deed. Clause 3 deals with the purchaser’s readiness to pay and take possession, whereas Clause 5 governs the situation where the seller is ready, but the purchaser defaults. Under Clause 5, a written notice is mandatory before cancellation. No such notice was admittedly issued; instead, the appellant - defendant merely replied to the respondents - plaintiffs’ notice claiming termination of the agreement. 15. This Court, therefore, does not find any perversity in the findings of the learned Trial Court on Issues No. 2 and 4. The appellant–defendant miserably failed to prove his readiness and willingness to execute the sale agreement dated 20.11.2010. 16. As regards the argument that the plaintiffs - respondents did not seek declaratory relief challenging termination, it is sufficient to note that no valid termination in accordance with Clause 5 ever occurred. The purported termination was issued merely as a reply to the respondents - plaintiffs notice and not by an independent written notice as mandated under the contract. Hence, the relief for specific performance was rightly entertained, and the contention of the appellant – defendant stands rejected. 17. In view of the above, this Court finds no case made out for grant of interim relief in favour of the appellant–defendant. The interim order dated 23.07.2025 is vacated. 18. Consequently, Stay Petition No. 2273/2025 stands rejected. 19. List the matter for final hearing in due course.