The readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the obligations under the agreement are crucial in determining the cause of action and the applicability of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by the defendant/applicant under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint as devoid of any cause of action and barred under Section 16 (c) of Specific relief Act, 1963.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20th December, 2002 against the defendant.

( 3 ) THE defendant asserted that the agreement dated 20th December, 2002 was cancelled and the plaintiff has admitted it in its correspondence, however, the cancellation of the agreement dated 20th December, 2002 has not been challenged by the plaintiff resulting in acceptance/acquiescence. Therefore, according to defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance or any other relief pertaining to agreement dated 20th December, 2002.

( 4 ) THE defendant/applicant has also sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 16 (c) of Specific relief Act. The applicant/defendant contended that plaintiff company has failed to show that it had been ready and willing to perform the agreement and to comply with the stipulation contained therein. No constructive step was taken by the plaintiff in support of its contention to comply with the agreement dated 20th December, 2002 and even in the correspondence, the bald statements were made by the plaintiff which are also of no use to him. Referring to the averments made in the plaint, it was asserted that entire basis for filing the present suit against the applicant/defendant is that whereas the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of agreement dated 20th December, 2002, the defendant/applicant was in breach.

( 5 ) THE property in dispute was agreed to be purchased by the plaintiff company for a sum of Rs. 5. 90 crore. Towards the consideration agreed, a sum of rs. 50. 00 lakh was paid in cash and Rs. 10. 00 lakh by cheque and a further sum of rs. 50. 00 lakh was paid by four post dated cheques which were categorically stipulated in the agreement to sell also. The applicant/defendant, thus, received a sum of Rs. 1. 10 crore from the plaintiff company. The balance amount had to be paid by the plaintiff company on or before 15th April, 2003. The applicant/defendant contended that the time was the essence of the agreement and was not to be extended because of any reason whatsoever and since the plaintiff company failed to pay balance amount of Rs. 4. 80 crore even despite the notice dated 14th April, 2003, reflective of the intention of the plaintiff company never to pay and clear the outstanding liability of Rs. 4. 80 crore. The plaintiff thus, failed to perform his part of agreement and the agreement stood cancelled. In the circumstances, it was stated that plaintiff has no cause of action and the plaint is liable to be rejected.

( 6 ) THE plaintiff has opposed the application contending that for ascertaining whether the plaint discloses cause of action or not, averments raised and pleas made in the plaint only have to be looked into and not the defence raised by the defendant. According to plaintiff, Shri K. L. Sondhi, father of the defendant, along with defendant, had executed the agreement to sell, however, Shri K. L. Sondhi died on 21st February, 2003, who had primarily been dealing with the plaintiff. On the demise of his father, the defendant represented to the plaintiff that he was in a state of flux, not knowing what to do and was unable to shift his household belongings and effects of over half a century to some other place. Defendant is alleged to have represented to plaintiff that he was not in a position to handover the possession of the property as provided in the agreement to sell and wanted to extend the time of performance thereof, however, neither the defendant took any steps which he was required to take under the agreement nor signed the supplementary agreement for exte