He further submits that the respondent-plaintiff in anticipation of getting the aforementioned agreement to sell and another agreement to sell of such nature, was entered with the different vendees, Ex.D3 to D5, as one of the vendees namely DW1, Satnam Singh, appeared in the Court . In fact, the respondent-plaintiff is a property dealer. In the cross-examination, it surfaced that he has no land except the land owned by his father, thus, the readiness and willingness was conspicuously missing, in essence, no amount to pay at the time of registration and execution of the sale deed. No statement of account has been placed on record except the marked documents which do not show the sufficient amount. Though he was subjected to cross-examination but made statement that he has some other record of these entries, which leads to irresistible conclusion that ingredients of Section 16(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act were not complied with and therefore, even if the suit filed on 13.11.2006, the Courts below ought not to have exercised the discretion. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the ratio decidendi culled out in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umabai and another Vs. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (dead) by LRs and another 2005(6) SCC 243 to contend that conduct of the parties must be determined having regard to the entire attending circumstances, in essence, bald averment in the plaint would not be sufficient. The plaintiff must plead all the ingredients of Section 16(1)(c) of
