Time may be of the essence of a contract, and delay and laches on the part of a plaintiff may amount to a waiver or abandonment of the contract, thereby barring the plaintiff's claim for specific performance.

VENKATADRI, J. :- This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance instituted by the appellant and the question involved is whether he is entitled to the relief which he claims.

2. The facts that led to the institution of the suit may be briefly referred to. It appears that the plaintiff appellant, a private company called Messrs. Shree Ram Cotton Pressing Factory, Ltd., having its registered office at Bombay, entered into an agreement of sale on 26-1-1957 with the defendant to purchase five acres of land in S. F. Nos. 424, 425 and 412 in the village of Souripalayam, Coimbatore taluk, at Rs. 7,500 per acre. The plaintiff also paid a sum of Rs. 5,000 as advance to the defendant The land agreed to be purchased was for the purpose of constructing a cotton pressing and ginning factory, which the defendant know even at the time of the agreement, but before the construction could be made, it was necessary that the area should be declared as an industrial area. Originally the time fixed for completing the sale transaction was two months from 26-1-1957, the date of the agreement, to enable the parties to apply to the concerned authorities and have the area in which the suit property it situate as an industrial area. But there is no mention of the purpose for which the property was intended to be purchased in the agreement of sale.

3. Soon after the agreement of sale was entered into the plaintiff corresponded with the Executive Officer, Panchayat Board, Peelamedu, requesting him to issue a certificate certifying the suit site as an industrial area. After some correspondence the Panchayat by its letter, dated 10-5-1957, Ex. A-6, stated that the area cannot be declared as an industrial one, unless the proposal of the panchayat in that behalf is approved by the Director of Public Health. By then the time originally fixed for completing the silo transaction had expired. The plaintiff was, however, careful enough to see that the time was extended from time to time till 15-7-1958. It is the plaintiff's case that it requested the defendant as the owner of the property to get the declaration from the concerned authorities promising to give him a benefit in the mill which the plaintiff intended to start in the land agreed to be sold. The defendant accordingly corresponded with the Executive Officer, Peelamedu Panchayat, Director of Public Health, Director of Town Planning and Deputy Secretary, Local Administration. On 25-11-1957, the Director of Public Health refused to give his approval to the Peelamedu Panchayat for declaring the site in question as an industrial area. Finally under Ex. B-7, dated 4-2-1958, the Government also refused to interfere in the matter. Nevertheless, the defendant carried on correspondence with the Deputy Secretary, Local Administration, requesting him at least to grant permission to install a 100 H.P. motor to run a pressing factory in the suit plot. By that time even the extended time for completing the sale transaction expired. It is common case the plaintiff did not get the time extended beyond 15-7-1958 and did not correspond with the defendant in that behalf. On 13-9-1958, the defendant received a communication from the Government informing him that the Government had no objection to the grant of permission by the Peelamedn Panchayat for the installation of electric motor of 100 H.P. for running a cotton pressing factory. The plaintiff after corning to know of this communication wrote to the Executive Officer, Peelamedu Panchayat on 12-3-1959 under Ex, A.7 without reference to the defendant requesting for the issue of a licence to the plaintiff to run a pressing factory. The plaintiff also wrote a letter Ex. A.8 on 19-3-1959, to the Deputy Secretary to Government requesting the issue of necessary orders to the Peelamedu Panchayat Board to issue a licence. Within a month thereafter the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant calling upon him to execute a sale deed in conformity with the terms