Judgment :- 1. Heard the Counsel for the parties. 2. Defendants are the Appellants herein. The Second Appeal is against the concurrent judgments. 3. The Suit filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent herein for specific performance of the contract was decreed and the same was confirmed in Appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants herein assailed the judgment and decree of the Courts below on the ground that before expiry of the time fixed in the contract, notice was not given and the Courts below wrongly relied upon the evidence of the Plaintiff that the First Defendant/First Appellant herein admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintiff orally asked him before issuing the notice. 5. It is well settled that time is not the essence of the contract for immovable property. Even assuming that before expiry of the contract, notice was not given by the Plaintiff about his willingness, but subsequent thereto, notices were given showing his willingness to perform his part of the contract. The Courts below have given concurrent findings about the readiness and willingness of the Plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved. 6. The Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is also dismissed.