On August 23, 1981, the plaintiff instituted the suit wherein, while asking for specific performance of the agreement, he also prayed alternatively for refund of the amount paid by him with interest. The defendants contested the suit. The pleadings of the parties are in line with the respective case set up in the suit notice and in the reply notice. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance holding that the plaintiff was ready, but not willing to perform his part of the contract, but directed that the earnest money be refunded to him with interest. The Trial Court rejected the plaintiff’s case, supported only by oral evidence, that during the period December 15, 1978 to July 11, 1981, the plaintiff has been requesting the defendants to execute the sale deed and that the defendants have been seeking time representing that the tenant had not vacated. The Trial Court also found that after the suit agreement, the plaintiff had purchased two other properties, in the years 1979 and 1981, for Rs. 35,000 and Rs. 30,000 respectively and that he had no remedy money to pay the balance registration under the suit agreement. On plaintiff’s appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court.The High Court accepted the plaintiff’s case that he had been asking for the defendants for execution of the sale deed and that the defendants had been seeking time representing that the tenant had not vacated. The High Court affirmed the finding of the Trial Court that time was not the essence of the contract, but reversed the Trial Court’s finding with respect to plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. In this appeal, learned counsel for the defendants, took us through the oral and documentary evidence on record and submitted that the plaintiff is disentitled to specific performance on account of the delay on his part and also because he was not ready and willing to perform his part to the contract. Learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff has in fact come forward with a false case that though he was demanding repeatedly, the defendants had been putting off the execution of the sale deed on the ground of existence of the tenant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that once it is held that time is not the essence of the contract and when the suit has been filed within the period of limitation prescribed by law, there is no reason for not decreeing specific performance. Submit