Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard Sri B. Malik, learned counsel for the appellants. None has however, appeared on behalf of the respondent.

2. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 31.1.1981 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Meerut, whereby he allowed the first appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 6.5.1975 passed by the trial court (2nd Addl. Civil Judge).

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale, which was hotly contested by the appellants-defendants in the trial court. At the trial stage, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent had failed to establish on record that he was ready to perform the essential terms of the contract, which were to be performed by him and accordingly, the trial court dismissed the suit against which the First Appeal was preferred. The 1st appellate court held that though, it is sufficiently established on record and it is clear from the evidence available that on the date fixed i.e. 28.12.1971, both the parties had visited the office of Sub-Registrar for registration of the sale deed to be executed in pursu