ORDER

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court Patna, made on May 23, 1996 in appeal from appellate decree No. 135 of 1982.

3. The admitted facts are that the appellant had sold the suit property by a registered conveyance dated 21.2.1969 with a contemporaneous agreement of reconveyance for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/-. The appellant had filed the suit on April 7, 1975 for specific performance of reconveyance of the property. The Courts below had dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The trial Court as well as the High Court further dismissed on the ground that the time was the essence of the contract and the appellant had not performed the contract within the stipulated time and, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation.

4. The question, therefore, is : whether the view taken by the trial Court and the High Court that the time is the essence of the contract is correct in law? No doubt, the High Court has framed the point in paragraph 8 of the judgment and recorded the finding that the time was the essence of the contract. It is an admitted position that th