As per case facts, the plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell a property through the defendant's constituted attorney. Later, the appellant purchased the same property via a registered sale ... deed. The plaintiff, upon discovering this, served a notice demanding specific performance of the initial agreement. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit due to the plaintiff's failure to aver readiness and willingness and refusal to grant discretionary relief. However, the High Court reversed these findings, leading to the current appeal by the third defendant (appellant).The question arose whether the plaintiff's failure to explicitly aver 'readiness and willingness' in the plaint, as mandated by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, rendered the suit unsustainable, and if the High Court was justified in interfering with the discretionary relief denied by the lower courts.Finally, the Supreme Court held that explicit averments of readiness and willingness are mandatory for specific performance, and while substantial compliance may suffice in exceptional cases, the plaintiff's vague statements did not meet this requirement. The Court emphasized that readiness and willingness must be pleaded and proven. Furthermore, the plaintiff's significant delay in filing the suit and failure to contact the property owner directly for execution of the deed showed a lack of diligence. The Supreme Court also reiterated that appellate courts should not ordinarily interfere with the discretionary relief exercised by lower courts unless a wrong legal principle was applied or discretion was exercised unreasonably. Thus, the High Court erred in reversing the lower court's decision.