17. It is necessary to provide that Subsection 1 is an enabling provision. An applicant in an appeal relating to a particular service may require other facilities of use mentioned in sections (a) and (b) of these clauses. Clause (a) provides for exemptions from ownership and division as well as separate ownership of the property in addition to a given performance. The mandate of Article 22(2) is that the General Court shall not grant an appeal under points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 unless explicitly invoked. It follows that no court may grant exemption for the ownership of immovable property or other immovable property, which is the subject of the contract of sale for which a particular supply is claimed, unless ownership of the property is expressly determined`. To be successful, an applicant must prove facts that would demonstrate availability and availability at all times. It is not enough to show willpower until the moment of legal action, but the conduct must be such that the will and availability are revealed at all times, from the date of the contract to the decree through the appeal. This principle has been set out in the following judgments: but I have more difficulty with the second point raised in the case.
I understand that if one of the parties intends to enter into a contract on a number of terms and the other intends to enter into a contract on another set of conditions or, as is sometimes said, where the parties are not ad idem, there is no contract unless the circumstances are such that one of the parties cannot deny, that she has accepted the conditions of others. The rule of law is the rule of law that was established in Freeman v Cooke.  If, whatever the real intention of a human being, he behaves in such a way that a reasonable man believes that he accepts the conditions proposed by the other party and that other party, according to that belief, enters into the contract with him, the man who behaves in this way would be as bound as if he intended to: to approve the terms of the other party. In I.S. Sikandar v. K. Subramani, the Supreme Court held that in the event of failure to pray for dismissal and to declare termination unlawful, additional facilitation for the execution of the terminated agreement could not be granted: “24. In many cases, the term “availability and availability” was interpreted even before its inclusion in section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act 1963.
In considering how and how the applicant must prove his financial availability: In order to be able to assert the actual performance of the contract/agreement, the Privy Council endorsed Chagla`s opinion, Actg.C.J., in a high-level case before the Indian courts (Bombay) in the case of Bank of India Ltd v Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy, and found, inter alia, that contracts and agreements are important for all entities. . . .