Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.— Heard learned counsel for the appellants at the admission stage. This is plaintiffs' second appeal arising out of O.S. No.1604 of 1995 which was decreed on 07.11.2003 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.20, Gorakhpur and defendant respondent Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur was directed to complete the shops in dispute bearing No.5 & 6 within a month and allot one shop to each plaintiff after receiving remaining amount of Rs.45,000/- from each plaintiff along with rent and after completing necessary formalities. Against the said decree defendant respondent Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur filed Civil Appeal No.90 of 2003, which was allowed by A.D.J. Court No.4, Gorakhpur. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside and suit of both the plaintiffs was dismissed hence this second appeal. Plaintiffs Mohammad Yusuf and Mst. Kharija (sic. Khadija) are brother and sister. The case of the plaintiffs was that they had taken a shop on rent from Graveyard Committee, Mohalla Turkmanpur, City Gorakhpur, which was covered by tin-shed and near the road side land patari however Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur constructed shops on the road side land which completely blocked plaintiffs' shop. The shops which were constructed by the Nagar Nigam were offered for allotment and plaintiffs applied for taking the shops which were in front of their old shop and deposited the registration amount on 19.10.1993 for taking two shops. The registration amount was Rs.5010/- each. It was further pleaded that premium of the shops which were to be allotted to the plaintiffs was of Rs.35,000/- each out of which Rs.5010/- had been deposited by each plaintiff as security and rent was fixed at Rs.200/- per month for each shop, and that defendants had constructed shops but construction was incomplete even though roof had been placed. The defendant pleaded that in the locality Turkbhanpur Barafkhana it had constructed 50 shops which were offered for allotment to the general public through advertisement and premium of 30 shops was Rs.50,000/- each and the size was 3 meter X 2.4 meter. The rent was Rs.300/- per month. Rest 20 shops were of lesser area i.e. 2.4 meter X 5 meter and premium for each such shop was Rs.20,000/- and rent was Rs.100/- per month. It was admitted that plaintiffs had got themselves registered for allotment of one shop each. The rent was Rs.300/- per month. Rest 20 shops were of lesser area i.e. 2.4 meter X 5 meter and premium for each such shop was Rs.20,000/- and rent was Rs.100/- per month. It was admitted that plaintiffs had got themselves registered for allotment of one shop each. It was further stated that allotment letters were issued to the plaintiffs on 21.01.1997 allotting Shops No.5 & 6. It was further stated that in the allotment letter it was stated that remaining amount of premium i.e. Rs.45,000/- and three months' advance rent i.e. Rs.900/- should be deposited by each plaintiff within one month of receipt of allotment letter. They were also required to submit proper stamp papers for execution of agreement and to get possession otherwise allotment would be deemed to be cancelled. However, plaintiffs did not deposit any amount and get the agreement executed. It was further stated that Nagar Nigam had afterwards decided to sell the shops. Plaintiffs admitted receipt of the allotment letter, however they asserted that they could be required to pay only Rs.35000/- as premium at old rates of 1993 and in this regard they also gave a written application on 11.02.1997 (after receiving allotment letter on 14.02.1997). Plaintiffs also pleaded that in the year 1997 premium was wrongly enhanced from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and rent from Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per month. Plaintiffs further stated through replica/ rejoinder that they were ready to pay even Rs.50,000/- premium and Rs.300/- per month rent for each shop still shops were not handed over to the plaintiffs. The suit had been filed in the year 1995, i.e. before receipt of the notice dated 21.01.1997 on 04.02.1997. On the basis of statement of the plaintiffs in replica that they were ready to pay Rs.50,000/-, the trial court held that plaintiffs were ready to perform their part. However it is very strange that even though the suit was decreed in 2003 still the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division did not say a single word as to why since 1997 till 2003 i.e. for 6 years in spite of readiness of the plaintiffs they did not pay requisite amount and fulfil other formalities. The lower appellate court on this very ground set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and in my opinion very rightly. The lower appellate court on this very ground set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and in my opinion very rightly. Plaintiffs had admitted that they were ready to pay even Rs.50,000/- premium however they never paid the amount not even for six years from receiving the notice. To be ready is one thing and actual payment is quite another. There is world of difference between the two. Accordingly, in my opinion, plaintiffs were not entitled to the allotment. Lower appellate court rightly allowed the appeal. The trial court had committed grave error in decreeing the suit. Second appeal is therefore dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11, C.P.C. _