JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Fight in this second appeal is between two retired Station Masters who after having served their term were in search of a house to live peacefully for the rest of their life but what they got in turn was litigation which has brought them to this Court. On 2-10-1970 an agreement of sale was entered between plaintiff-respondents and the defendant-appellant No. 1 also a railway employee for sale of a house situated in Mohala Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly. It has been one of the disputes whether the house was to be purchased by 20th Nov. 1970 or within six months and whether time was essence of contract but the lower appellate court has found on both these aspects in favour oi plaintiff respondents and the finding being a finding of fact is not liable to be challenged nor it has been challenged in this Court. The necessity, however, to file the suit arose as on 17th March, 1971 appellant No. 1 sold the house in favour of defendant-appellant No. 2. As usually happens after the house was sold the plaintiff became active and more interested than before, therefore, sent a registered notice on 3-4-1971 and finally filled the suit for specific performance which although dismissed by trial Court has been decreed by lower appellate Court. 2. What was urged as principal arguments, rather the only argument was that the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed for failure of plaintiff to aver and prove the requirements of S. 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. For considering this argument it is not necessary to go into the various findings recorded by two Courts below. It, however, cannot be disputed that no issue on this was framed probably because the plaintiff had nowhere averred in the plaint that he was willing and ready to purchase the house at all points of time in fact it was in paragraph 5 of the written statement that the defendant took up specific plea that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to get the sale-deed executed nor did he arrange for the balance amount up to aforesaid date and he never required the answering defendant to execute the sale-deed within the aforesaid date. In reply to this the plaintiff, no doubt, filed a replication but curiously enough did not take any steps to amend the plaint. In reply to this the plaintiff, no doubt, filed a replication but curiously enough did not take any steps to amend the plaint. Not only this the evidence is wholly deficient and no statement has been made to cover up the defect of the plaint by stating that the plaintiff was willing to purchase the house not only on the date of agreement or the date of filing of the suit, but even on the date of hearing. What is the effect of this omission shall be considered a little later as it was urged on behalf of respondents that replication is a part of plaint. Reliance was placed on Mukundi Lal v. Smt. Ram Pyari (1971 All LJ 137) and Jagdutta v. Savitri Devi, (AIR 1977 Punj & Har 68). None of the cases, however, are of any help as in the case of Mukundi Lal (supra) it was held that where both parties knew about the case and no objection was raised by defendant to filing of replication it could not be argued in second appeal that it in any manner prejudiced him. In the Punjab decision (supra) it was no doubt said that replication is a part of the pleadings but it is not worthwhile going into this controversy nor it is necessary to discuss the large number of Supreme Court's decisions cited on behalf of respondents that for deficiency of pleadings the case should not be dismissed as even assuming that the plaintiff had alleged, in the plaint that he was willing to perform his part of contract it was not sufficient in law unless he further proves it by evidence and as stated above in this respect there is no whisper in any of the statements. In G. Pillai v. P. Nadar, ( AIR 1967 SC 868 ), it has been observed that in order to succeed in a suit for specific performance the plaintiff should not only aver but prove on the date of hearing that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The view has been reiterated in Premraj v. D. L. F. Housing & Const. Pvt. Ltd. ( AIR 1968 SC 1355 ) and Manohar Lal v. Rajeshwari Devi, ( AIR 1977 All 36 ). The view has been reiterated in Premraj v. D. L. F. Housing & Const. Pvt. Ltd. ( AIR 1968 SC 1355 ) and Manohar Lal v. Rajeshwari Devi, ( AIR 1977 All 36 ). Reliance was placed by learned counsel for respondents on Prag Dutt v. Smt. Saraswati Devi, ( AIR 1982 All 37 ) and it was alleged that from facts and circumstances of the case it was clear that the plaintiff was not only willing but keen to purchase the property. In this respect the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court was relied and it was urged that the conduct of the plaintiff is amply clear by his anxiety of selling agricultural land for purchasing the property which was established by recitals in sale deeds. True and the view which is being taken may be harsh yet the requirement of law being clear and the provision being mandatory there is no escape from the conclusion that the plaintiff has to be non-suited for a serious lacuna with which his case suffers. 3. In the result this second appeal succeeds and is allowed. The decree and judgment passed by lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. As the respondent is being nonsuited due to technical defect parties shall bear their costs throughout.