JUDGMENT :

G.R. UDHWANI, J.

1. These Revision Applications arise out of the order rendered under O.7 R.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) rejecting the application in a suit lodged by the opponent for specific performance of the contract in respect of different parcels of land involved in respective revision applications.

2. Application under O.7 R.11 came to be tendered by the opponent urging the rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred by Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act; the plaintiff not being an agriculturist (02) that it was also barred by limitation since the suit was filed only in the year 2014 seeking specific performance of the contract in relation to the land in question executed in the year 2008 and (03) that the plaintiff has no cause of action since it could not demonstrate how it was ready and willing to perform its part of the contract.

3. Per contra, the plaint was sought to be defended on the ground that in absence of challenge to the agreement, such contention was not maintainable. It was also argued that it was permissible for the Court to pass conditional decree requiring the plaintiff to comply with Section