very first hearing on 7.12.2009, the plaintiff obtained several opportunities regarding consideration of the “case for stay” (sic) with a view to prolong the litigation. The defendant has also raised a defence that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts and he has not come to Court with clean hands. It is a precept of law of specific performance that the decree is discretionary under Section 20 and specific performance will not be ordered merely because it is lawful to do so. The conduct of the plaintiff is always relevant and the Court will also test readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to secure the transaction in the manner mandated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The defence brought out even as preliminary objections does not disclose plaintiff's entitlement to secure the sale deed by a judgment without trial. The case refers to the issue for adjudication in suit and there is no scope for a direction for a judgment to be rendered immediately on the so called admissions. In so passing the order, I may have foreclosed the opportunity for the plaintiff to seek for disposal of the application before the Court below but it is plaintiff's own doing, for, I had forewarned the counsel that he may not argue on the application, but he insisted for the disposal of the application before the Court below. There cannot be a piecemeal consideration for a mere direction for disposal without adverting to the merits of his contentions. If the plaintiff is aggrieved that he has parted with large consideration to the defendant without enjoying the benefit, it is open to him to move any application for direction to refund the amount, subject to outcome in suit or any other direction that would make way
