CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) NO question of law or fact muchless as a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. It is wholly misconceived. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell inter alia contending that he had entered into an agreement with the defendant for purchase of a plot of land in Kangrali in Belgaum measuring approximately 35'x 66. 6' ft. He further alleged that he paid a sum of Rs. 500/- as advance. He further alleged that he was willing to deposit a sum of rs. 2000/- the balance consideration price and that the Court therefore should appoint a commissioner to execute the suit sale deed in respect of the suit properly. The defendant admitted that he was the owner of the suit property. He also admitted the execution of the agreement to sell as well as consideration shown therein but he denied that he was avoiding to execute the sale deed under the agreement to sell. He specifically averred that the defendant never tendered the sum of Rs. 2000/- nor attempted tendering the amount. The defendant was always ready and willing to perform his obligation in respect of the sale deed. As the balance consideration was not paid, the plaintiff who was in default of payment was not entitled to the relief as prayed for. He also alleged that the Urban land Ceiling Act was in the way and unless the plaintiff took appropriate steps in obtaining the permission of the Urban Land Ceiling Authority, it was not possible to convey the property. But all attempts made by the defendant to secure the co-operation of the plaintiff in that behalf did not meet with success. Therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. He also took the stand that the suit was barred by time as the agreement was entered in 1977. ( 3 ) ON such pleadings as many as five issues were framed. It suffices to state the third issue and the finding recorded by the trial Court on it. The third issue was as follows: " (3) Whether the suit is barred by time?" ( 4 ) IT was in evidence that the defendant had agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 14-7-1974. Therefore, the learned Judge went into the question whether time was the essence of the contract. The third issue was as follows: " (3) Whether the suit is barred by time?" ( 4 ) IT was in evidence that the defendant had agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 14-7-1974. Therefore, the learned Judge went into the question whether time was the essence of the contract. The suit was filed on 26-5-1982 and in between there was no evidence adduced by the plaintiff to show that he was willing to perform his obligation under the contract and complete the sale before the stipulated date. Merely because the plaintiff was lazy in enforcing his rights, it could not be said that the trial Court's conclusion that time was the essence of the contract, is erroneous. In all cases of sale of land, particularly, in urban areas if time is stipulated for performing the contract, it must be held to be essential in gathering the intention of parties or essence of the contract. Otherwise, in the ever growing market value of urban sites to hold that time is not the essence of the contract is to freeze the price agreed at a particular date ignoring the fact that the seller owner would incur enarmous loss if the time is extended according to the sweet will and pleasure of the purchaser. There was nothing in the agreement to come to the conclusion that time was not the essence of the contract. ( 5 ) THE prayer of the plaintiff was hopeless lybelated. ( 6 ) THE lower appellate Court took the sameview and affirmed that finding. If on that finding the plaintiff was bound to fail, no useful purpose would be served in examining the other grounds urged in this appeal. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, there is no merit in this appeal and it is rejected. Appeal rejected. --- *** --- .