Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Challenge in this appeal is the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court holding that the appellants were not entitled to a decree for specific performance of contract. In a second appeal filed by the respondent, the judgment and decree of the trial court as affirmed by the first Appellate Court were reversed and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Originally the suit was filed by Nunu Mahto, husband of appellant N. 1, father of appellant No. 5. After death of Nunu Mahto his legal heirs were substituted. The High Court proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff had not proved that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. There was neither pleading nor evidence was tendered in terms of requirement of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short the ‘Act’). Learned counsel for the appellants highlighted as to how the judgment of the High Court suffers from various infirmities both factually and on principle of law. None appears for the respondent though she was represented by a counsel who did not appear on several dates of hearing and also is not present today.

2. The second appeal was admitted by the Hig