physically do so and it is enough if he pleads and establishes that he was and is capable of make such sound at all the times. Thus, by doing so, the Agreement holder satisfies one part of his obligation or requirement under Section16(c). But is that sufficient to hold that he is also willing to perform his part of the contract in the absence of specific pleading to that effect? At this juncture, it is very curcial to note one aspect. An Agreement holder, after entering into the Agreement, at any time later, may change his mind and give up the contract for so may reasons, even though he is financially sound to fulfil his part of the contract. Therefore, his readiness pleaded and established by his financial capacity alone is not sufficient, unless it is also pleaded and proved that he is willing to put such readiness into action to complete the transaction within the time stipulated. Unless such intention of the Agreement holder is also pleaded with material averments and proved, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirement of Section 16(c) in its strict sense. The 'readiness' and 'willingness' being both sides of a coin, should co-exist and survive throughout commencing from the date of Agreement till the Decree is passed. If “readiness” is the “cart carrying the coins”, the “willingness” is the “horse”, dragging the cart to its destination. Needless to say, a cart loaded with coins is useless, unless there is a horse to carry it. Equally, existence of an healthy horse is also not sufficient, unless there is a cart loaded with coins for the horse to carry.”
