would not be a ground to deny the discretionary relief and moreover, when both the courts below have found that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 8. Mr. Hrin P. Raval, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the High Court ought not to have disturbed the concurrent judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that the7 judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court being based on perverse findings and reasoning, the High Court has rightly set aside the same for decreeing the plaintiff’s suit in respect of specific performance. According to him, the High Court has rightly applied the doctrine of lis pendens. 9. Before proceeding to deal with the applicability of doctrine of lis pendens, it is significant to note that Issue no. 5 framed by the Trial Court was to the