Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the first appeal No. 24/2 of 1985/86 passed by Sri Jagmohan Bir. The defendant of the title Suit No. 54/83 had preferred the first appeal. The appeal was allowed and, therefore, second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff of the suit. It was decreed in his favour by the trial Court. 2. The suit was filed for seeking specific purpose of contract. The facts giving rise to the suit in a narrow compass were that on 2-3-1983 there was an agreement between the parties that the suit land would be sold to the plaintiff for Rs. 3000.00 . On 4-3-1983 a sale-deed was scribed, presented before the Registrar and registered. It was agreed that the plaintiff shall give Rs. 3000.00 to the defendant on 5-3-1983 and then latter shall hand over the registration receipt (equivalent) to the plaintiff, so that he may take out the sale-deed from the registration office, The plaintiff went to tender this amount to the defendant, but he failed to accept the same and handover the registration receipt. The plaintiff, thereafter, again approached the defendant with tender of the money, but the defendant instead of accepting the consideration money served the lawyers notice on the plaintiff alleging many things including the non-tender of the consideration amount causing loss to the defendant. This notice was replied to by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit thereafter and tendered the consideration money in Court and wanted the Court to decree the suit directing the defendant to handover the registration receipt and on his failure to compel him to do the same. 3. The defendant-respondents case was that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract and therefore, he had cancelled the sale-deed registered on 4-3-1983 and the plaintiff was, therefore, not entitled to any relief. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit, but the appellate Court reversed the judgment and, therefore, the plaintiff of the suit has come up before this Court against the judgment of the 1st appellate Court. 5. Admittedly, a sale-deed was registered. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit, but the appellate Court reversed the judgment and, therefore, the plaintiff of the suit has come up before this Court against the judgment of the 1st appellate Court. 5. Admittedly, a sale-deed was registered. The fact that there was an agreement for sale of 1 katha, 14 dhurs and odd was contested by the defendant and it was averred by him that there was an agreement for sale of only 1 katha 10 dhurs of land, but virtually 1 katha 14 dhurs and odd were included in the sale-deed. Morevoer, the plaintiff failed to tender the consideration money by due date and this necessitated the defendant-respondent to cancel the sale-deed after proper lawyers notice. So, the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to any relief. The 1st appellate Court went deep into the entire gamut of the evidence, oral and documentary, and came to the conclusion that, of course, there was an agreement for sale of 1 katha and 10 dhurs of land and a part of homestead land of the defendant was unnecessarily included in the sale-deed. The appellate Court further held that the plaintiff had failed to perform his part of contract regarding the tender of money and, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief. 6. It was submitted by the appellants lawyer that the plaintiff was already ready to tender the consideration money of the land sold and towards this end, he had tendered the money in this Court as well. So, the 1st appellate Courts finding on this fact was vitiated by law and erroneous. However, on perusal of the appellate Courts judgment, I find that the appellate Court held that the plaintiff had failed in his evidence to give the dates on which he had gone to tender the consideration money to the defendant. The appellate Court also held that the plaintiff in his evidence said that he had no money when he went to tender the same to the defendant, in this connection, evidence of P.W. 5, Toshan Sah, is worth mentioning. Of course in chief the plaintiff said that the sale-deed was registered on 4-3-1983. He further said that on the next date he tendered money to the plaintiff. Of course in chief the plaintiff said that the sale-deed was registered on 4-3-1983. He further said that on the next date he tendered money to the plaintiff. But, in cross-examination at paragraph 8, the plaintiff failed to give the dates on which he went to tender the money to the defendant as he claimed that even after that date, he had gone to the defendant for several times. Besides the above, the plaintiff clearly admitted that when talk for sale was being held he had no money in his possession, it was deposited in the Bank. He further said that on the next date of talk also he failed to withdraw money from the Bank. His account stood in the Punjab National Bank and State Bank, Tajpur. He did not withdraw his money. He Said that he did not withdraw money because the defendant failed to accept the tender money. This statement clearly indicates that whenever the plaintiff went to tender the consideration money to the defendant, he was not in possession of money. In such a circumstance, it cannot be held that he had actually tendered the consideration money to the defendant, even though he had gone to the defendant, if his claim in this connection is accepted. Admittedly, there was no tender of consideration money and, therefore, it can be safely held that he had made any tender of the consideration money to the defendant. The 1st appellate Court has taken note of this clear fact which emerged from the statement of the plaintiff (P.W.5) in his evidence before the trial Court. Paragraph 4 of the plaintiffs plaint stated clearly that it was agreed that the plaintiff shall give the consideration money to the defendant on the next date and, hence, the registration receipt was handed over to the defendant. At paragraph 3 it was stated that it was registered on 4-3-1983. So, from the aforesaid statement at paragraph 3 and 4 of the plaint, it is further apparent that on 5-3-1983 the consideration money was to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. So, time was the essence of the contract and therefore, if the plaintiff failed to abide by the terms of the contract, it amounted to his failure to perform his part of the contract. So, he was not entitled to seek specific performance of contract from the defendant. So, time was the essence of the contract and therefore, if the plaintiff failed to abide by the terms of the contract, it amounted to his failure to perform his part of the contract. So, he was not entitled to seek specific performance of contract from the defendant. The argument that the plaintiff deposited the consideration money in Court and he was still ready to perform his part of the contract, in no way, will entitle him to seek reliefs sought for nor it could be held by the 1st appellate Corut nor it can be held by this Court that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In a case where time was essence of contract and one of the parties to the contract fails to abide by his part of the contract, there would be a clear breach of contract. Hence, the party seeking specific performance of contract from the other party cannot be entitled to seek this relief. The appellate Court has held exactly like that. 7. So, far the other facts whether the concerned sale-deed had conferred title upon the plaintiff and whether the defendant was not entitled to cancel the sale-deed, I am to hold that these issues were beside the point and beyond the scope of the suit. However, a few words regarding the same would suffice. Admittedly, the consideration money of the sale was not paid because admitted case of the parties was that the entire consideration money was to be paid on 5-3-1983. The finding arrived at by the 1st appellate Court and the evidence of the plaintiff to which I have referred clearly indicated that the plaintiff failed to pay the consideration money to the defendant on 5-3-1983 as agreed. So, the sale-deed, even though registered, was void for non-payment of consideration money. It transpired from the evidence of which the 1st appellate Court has taken special note of, that defendant had sold the suit land to receive money to invest in business. Since he failed to receive the money in time, he sent lowyers notice on 7-3-1983 and received reply on 17-3-1983. He, therefore, cancelled the sale-deed and perhaps, sought other sources for money to invest in his business. Since he failed to receive the money in time, he sent lowyers notice on 7-3-1983 and received reply on 17-3-1983. He, therefore, cancelled the sale-deed and perhaps, sought other sources for money to invest in his business. The aforesaid circumstances clearly suggested further that the purpose of sale by the defendant was equally frustrated in view of the plaintiffs non-performance of his part of the contract. In this circumstance as well, the plaintiff was not entitled to seek relief sought for. Moreover, it appears that, perhaps, the plaintiff filed the suit and deposited the sale money in Court when he found ultimately that the defendant had cancelled the sale dead. So, his subsequent readiness and willingness was immaterial and unacceptable. In a suit for specific performance of contract where the time was the essence, failure on the part of the plaintiff to abide by the terms of the. contract will not entitle him to seek a decree for specific performance of contract from the defendant. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree of the 1st appellate Court are, hereby, confirmed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs of this appeal.