Time is generally not considered essence in immovable property contracts; refusal to perform requires consideration of readiness alongside equitable claims for refund.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28th July, 2007 passed by IXth Additional District Judge (FTC), Raipur in Civil Suit No. 45 - A / 2004 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant / plaintiff for specific performance of the contract and permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents / defendants, the appellant has filed this appeal under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are as follows:
i. By an agreement for sell (Ext. P1) dated 18-6-2003 entered into between the appellant as purchaser and the respondent as vender, the respondent agreed to sell the suit property comprising of Nazul Land and house No. 21/587 and 21/588 (new No. 5/587 and 5/588) Khasra Nos. 363 and 372 area about 13,000 Sq. Ft., situated at Ram Sagar Para Ward No. 5, Raipur Patwari Halka No. 6, Tehsil and Distt. Raipur at the rate of Rs. 185 per Sq. Ft., for total consideration of Rs. 24,00,000/- along with godown standing thereon. Prior to execution of above agreement Ext. P1, the appellant paid Rs. 5 lacs (Rs. 3 lacs in cash and Rs. 2 lacs by two cheques) as earnest money. Under Clause (1) of the said agreement, the sale deed was to be executed after getting entire amount of consideration within a period of six months. The expenses have to be borne by the purchaser / appellant. Under Clause (2), it was agreed upon between the parties that on appellant s direction, instead of one sale deed for the entire suit property, more than one sale deeds comprising of part of the suit property could be executed in favour of the different purchasers at their own cost but sale deed was to be executed only after receiving full consideration amount. Under clause (3) if the purchaser so desires, he may get the suit land measured through any architect or engineer for his own satisfaction and at his own cost. Under clause (5), performance of the agreement was made essential within a period of six months from 26-5-2003. Under clause (6) it was agreed upon between the parties that vacant possession of the suit property including the godown was to be handed over by the vender after getting full consideration before registration of the sale deed.
ii. On 8-11-2003, vide Ext. P2, the appellant published public notice inviting objections.
iii. Vide Annexure P3 dated 19-11-2003, a notice was sent calling upon the appellant to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement Ext. P1 latest by 26-11-2003 by paying Rs. 19 lacs i.e. balance consideration amount else the agreement for sale would come to an end and the respondent will be free to sell the above land to any other intending purchaser.
iv. In reply to the above notice, the appellant sent reply Ext. P4 showing his inability to get the sale deed executed on account of non - co - operation of the respondent in getting the suit property demarcated by not supplying the appropriate documents and due to non - handing over possession of the vacant suit property to the appellant for the purposes of measurement. It was further mentioned in the above reply that despite several requests made by the appellant to execute the sale deed in part, i.e. proportionate to the amount paid by the appellant, the respondent is not executing the sale deed in part and thus had violated the terms of the agreement. The further reason given in the reply was that although some original documents were handed over to the appellant in the month of October but all the original documents were not handed over, however after getting the documents, the appellant has