Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.20 – Discretion under – Exercise of, scope – Held: Discretion under s.20 of the Act is required to be exercised judiciously, soundly and reasonably – Plaintiff cannot be punished by refusing the relief of specific performance despite the fact that the execution of the agreement to sell in his favour was established and proved and that he was found to be always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – Not to grant the decree of specific performance despite the execution of the agreement to sell and part sale consideration having been proved and the plaintiff being always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract would encourage the dishonesty – In such a situation, the balance should tilt in favour of the plaintiff rather than in favour of the defendant-executant of the agreement to sell, while exercising the discretion judiciously. Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.16(c) – Suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell – Both, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court held all the issues in favour of the plaintiff including the issue that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract – However, High Court in exercise of powers under s.100 of the CPC reversed the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below on readiness and willingness, solely on the ground that there were no specific averments in the plaint required as per s.16(c) of the Act – High Court also allowed the appeal on the ground that the relief of specific performance is the discretionary relief under s.20 of the Act and that even though the execution of the agreement to sell is proved and even the plaintiff was found to be always ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation under the agreement to sell, the decree of specific performance is not automatic and such grant of decree is dependent upon the principles of justice, equity and good conscience – On appeal, held: High Court committed a grave error in holding the issue with respect to readiness and willingness against the plaintiff solely on the ground that there were no specific averments/pleadings in the plaint as required under s.16(c) of the Act – The fact that initially payment of Rs.25,000/- was made at the time of execution of the agreement to sell and further sum of Rs.15,000/- in two installments were paid at the time when the subsequent two documents were executed for extension of time and even the time was extended at the instance of defendant No.1 and the balance amount of Rs.16,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed proved that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract under the agreement to sell – Suit for specific performance of agreement of sell decreed. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.100 – Scope of interference – Held: There were concurrent findings of fact recorded by Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, which were on appreciation of evidence on record – Therefore, in exercise of powers under s.100 of the CPC, High Court ought not to have interfered with such findings of fact unless such findings are found to be perverse – The findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff showed that they were not perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record – On the contrary, High Court had ignored the necessary aspects on readiness and willingness including the conduct on the part of the parties – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c).