As per case facts, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land, claiming full consideration was paid and possession along with original Rin-Pustika ... was delivered. The defendant denied these claims. The Trial Court found foundational facts (agreement, payment, possession) in plaintiff's favor but dismissed the suit, stating the plaintiff was not continuously ready and willing to perform his contractual part. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that despite favorable findings on all material issues, specific performance was denied. The question arose whether the plaintiff sufficiently established continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract to be entitled to specific performance. Finally, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that specific performance is discretionary. It ruled that while foundational facts were proven, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate 'actionable preparedness' for the remaining obligations, such as arranging for deed drafting and registration expenses, which is a prerequisite for such relief.