ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present appeal is filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court wherein the learned Judge interfering in the second appeal set aside a decree for specific performance passed by the lower appellate court.

2. The only ground on the basis of which the learned Judge of the High g Court interfered with the decree passed by the lower appellate court was that the plaintiff has not alleged and proved that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The learned Judge held that although after the written statement in the rejoinder application the plaintiff has alleged that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The learned Judge also observed that there was no issue to that effect.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the issues before the trial court. It could not be held that the issue about the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract was not framed by the trial court. In fact the plaintiff stated that he sold his agricultural properties and collected money to pay consideration in instalments and requested the defendant to execut