ORDER :- The only question which is involved in this revision proceeding is whether an amount of Rs. 500 which was paid at the initial stage of an agreement to convey properties between the parties, represents an advance simpliciter, or has any tinge of the character of a deposit for due performance of the contract, or earnest money. If the amount of Rs. 500 is only an advance, the plaintiff (revision petitioner) was bound to succeed in his suit. If it could be conceivably held that the amount of Rs. 500 could be regarded, notwithstanding the mere nomenclature in the document the absence of a forfeiture clause, or the absence of any other indication in the evidence, as a deposit for the due performance, or earnest money, then the plaintiff will have to fail. The Courts below have non-suited the plaintiff, and he is the revision petitioner here.

2. For an important reason, I am not now proceeding into the one question of fact decided by the courts below, that time had to be construed as the essence of this contract on the facts, and further that it was the plaintiff, the intending vendee, who committed breach of the contract. Had the matter been open for my determination, so