Jaspreet Singh, J. - (1.) This second appeal calls in question the true import and meaning to be ascribed to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act in order to determine whether the first appellate court has rightly construed the finding on readiness and willingness of the plaintiff for the purposes of seeking the specific enforcement of registered agreement to sell dated 06.08.1999.
(2.) This Court while admitting the above second appeal by means of the order dated 11.02.2011 had admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law as reproduced here under:- "II. Whether non framing of point of determination by the first appellant court in the present circumstances of this case has resulted into miscarriage of justice? III. Whether first appellate court has misappreciated the material question that if the plaintiff pleads an attempt to prove a false and wrong case for specific performance of the contract the plaintiff becomes dis-entitle to obtain equitable relief under Sections 20 and 21 of the Specific Relief Act, which is absolutely discretion of the Court? IV. Whether the discretion exercised by the trial court to refuse its exercise by the trial court under Sections 21 and 22 of the Specific Relief Act refusing the specific performance of the contract could be reverse by the first appellate court in the special circumstances of the present case where the first appellate court has not set aside the findings recorded by the trial court?"
(3.) Later by means of the order dated 19.12.2017 this Court framed another substantial question of law which is being reproduced herein after:- "Whether the lower appellate court was justified in returning the finding that the plaintiff-respondent has proved his readiness and willingness and could have returned its finding in this regard without reversing the finding of learned trial court?";