The time stipulated in a sale agreement is not necessarily the essence of the contract for immovable properties, and readiness and willingness to perform the contract must be demonstrated by the parties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in A.S(MD)No.175 of 2010: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 and Order XL Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.118 of 2008, dated 13.4.2010, on the file of the Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court No.I), Thanjavur.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to set aside the Docket Order passed in E.P.No.27 of 2012 in O.S.No.118 of 2008, dated 22.1.2013, on the file of the Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court, Thanjavur.)

Common Judgment

1. The Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.118 of 2008, dated 13.4.2010, on the file of the Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court No.I), Thanjavur.

2. C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.273 of 2013 is filed seeking to set aside the Docket Order passed in E.P.No.27 of 2012 in O.S.No.118 of 2008, dated 22.1.2013, on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Thanjavur.

3. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the appellant herein and the second and third respondents are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.118 of 2008, on the file of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thanjavur for the relief of Specific performance. The trial Court, after trial, decreed the suit with costs granting one month time to deposit the balance sale consideration into Court and two months time to the first respondent to execute the sale deed as per the sale agreement. Challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the first defendant has filed the present appeal suit.

4. During the pendency of the appeal suit, the the first defendant has filed E.P.27 of 2012 to get the sale deed executed and to register the same in the Sub-Registrar Office concerned. The trial Court after deposit of the balance sale consideration, registered the sale deed through Court and E.P was closed. Challenging the said order, the first defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

5. The brief facts of the plaint reads as follows:

The suit property belongs to the first defendant. In respect of the suit property, there is an agreement between the plaintiff and first defendant on 3.1.2008. It was agreed that the sale consideration of the suit property is Rs.13,25,000/- and the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- as advance amount to the first defendant on the date of sale agreement itself. Further it was agreed to hand over the plaintiff the suit property with nil encumbrance after receiving the balance sale consideration within a period of six months from the date of sale agreement. The first defendant has also agreed to execute the sale deed and hand over the possession of the suit property within the time stipulated above. The plaintiff is also ready and willing to perform his part of contract as per the sale agreement. When the parent deed of the suit property was claimed, it was stated that the suit property was mortgaged with the second defendant in Loan Nos.644 and 645. The first defendant told the plaintiff to remit a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loan amount to the second defendant and accordingly, he remitted the same on 30.1.2008 and also obtained nil encumbrance certificate in respect of the suit property from the Sub-Registrar's Office concerned. The third defendant resided in the ground floor of the suit property as a tenant. The first defendant has assured the plaintiff that the third defendant should be vacated from the residence and hand over the vacant possession within the time stipulated in the sale agreement. Inspite of repeated requests, the first defendant has evaded the execution of the sale deed by saying some reason or other and for that reason, the first defendant and her husband absconded from the said area. Hence the plaintiff has sent a legal notice to the first defendant on 2.7.2008 and as the residence of the first defendant was found locked, it was affixed on the door on 8.7.2008. In the me