J.R. Goyal J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal under S.100 CPC.
(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit with the averments that he entered into an agreement with the defendants on 24.7.86 to purchase a residential plot situated at Pipli Kua, Dhola Bhata, Ajmer, measuring 435.60 sq.yds., as described in the plaint and on the aforesaid date the defendants received Rs.1000/- as advance-amount and rest of the amount of Rs.16,424/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the plot in favour of the plaintiff. It was also agreed that defendants will obtain the no-objection certificate in regard to the plot in question from competent authority and inform the plaintiff, but they have not obtained the no-objection certificate as yet. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance amount and to execute the agreement, but the defendants are avoiding to do so, therefore, a decree of specific performance of contract has been prayed for in the suit. In their written-statement, defendants have denied the contents of the plaint and stated that they are owner of the western half portion of khasra no.7474 measuring 9 biswa and the plot described in the plaint does not exist at all. Further case of the defendants is that they filed a civil suit against one Sharvan, who forcibly tried to possess their plot. During this litigation, the husband of plaintiff asked the defendants that if they undertake an agreement in favour of his wife, he will settle the dispute. Trusting on the statement of plaintiff, they undertook an agreement but no advance-money was taken by the defendants from the husband of plaintiff. Plaintiff also filed a rejoinder stating therein that the plot in question, is in existence and has denied the plea taken by the defendants in written-statement about filing of any civil suit. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, trial court framed issues. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court dismissed the suit and the appeal filed by plaintiff has also been dismissed by the first appellate court. Hence this second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the courts below have not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. It was further contended that non-appearance of the plaintiff in the witness-box is not sufficient for throwing out her case when the case of plaintiff is proved by other cogent evidence. It was then submitted that it has sufficiently been proved by Ratan Lal, husbhand of the plaintiff, that she was always ready and willing to perform her part, but without any good reason both the courts below have arrived at a wrong conclusion in this regard. I have considered the above submissions. Both the courts below, after detailed scrutiny of the evidence, arrived at a concurrent finding of fact on the point of ready and willingness of the plaintiff to perform her part, which has been decided against her, in which I do not find any perversity at all. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Consequently, this second appeal, along with the stay application, is dismissed at the admission stage. ;