JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present Second Appeal is filed by the appellants-original defendants under Section 100 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order in Regular Civil Appeal No. 97/2005 by the Additional District Judge, Navsari dated 15.09.2015 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 66/1982 by the Civil Judge (SD), Navsari dated 12.03.1985 posing substantial questions of law as follows:- "A. WHETHER time was the essence of the contract and the Plaintiff has fulfilled the requirement of Sec. 16(C) of the Act within such time prescribed in the contract? B. WHETHER the Ld. Trial Court has erred by granting decree for specific performance on the basis of unregistered document for transfer of immovable property valuing more than Rs. 100/- as the same is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court India reported in AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 206 in the matter of "Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana" decided in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13917 of 2009 D/- 11-10-2011? C. WHETHER the document of agreement for sale can be considered for granting relief for specific performance when such document was admitted only for collateral purpose? D. WHETHER the Ld. Trial Court has rightly passed decree for specific performance, though the plaintiff has failed to show that he has sufficient funds to pay the balance amount and is ready and willing to perform his part to the said unregistered agreement for sale within stipulated time as provided provision of Sec. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? E. WHETHER the findings recorded by the Ld. Trial Court are perverse in appreciating the oral evidence of witnesses in relation to the crucial question of time limit of the contract, to decide the controversy between the parties?" 2. Heard learned advocate, Shri N.V. Gandhi for the appellants and learned advocate, Shri Zubin Bharda for the respondents. 3. Learned advocate, Shri Gandhi referred to the background of the facts and submitted that the agreement to sale was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants for the purchase of the land on 25.12.1979 and the defendants had agreed to sell the land subject to the rate and terms and conditions as stated in the agreement to sell. Thus the sale consideration was Rs. Thus the sale consideration was Rs. 48,478/- was to be paid as stipulated in the agreement to sell within the period prescribed. He submitted that initially payment of Rs. 2,000/- was made and further amount of Rs. 5,000/- was to be paid within 15 days and entire amount of consideration was to be paid within a period of five months and the sale deed was to be executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. However, the learned advocate, Shri Gandhi referred to the papers and submitted that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate as to whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to execute the sale deed on payment of consideration. He submitted that the agreement to sell is not a registered agreement and, therefore, it could not have been relied upon. For that purpose, he referred to Section 17 of the Registration Act. However he mainly focused on the aspect of readiness and willingness to perform his part by making payment of the consideration. Learned advocate, Shri Gandhi referred to the papers and submitted that as the plaintiffs have failed to show that he was ready and willing to perform the contract and fulfillment of his obligation, the decree for specific performance could not have been granted. He again emphasized that time is essence of the contract, which has not been considered at all. In support of his submissions, learned advocate, Shri Gandhi also referred to and relied upon Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and submitted and readiness and willingness should be shown as required under Section 16(c) of the Act. He submitted that as the plaintiffs have failed to comply with the requirement of Section 16(c) of the Act for fulfillment of his obligation, the specific performance could not have been granted and, therefore, the present Second Appeal may be entertained. He further submitted that the Court may also examine the passage of time and the price escalation stating that even if the consideration which is permitted to be paid, would not be sufficient and, therefore, in equitable consideration, appropriate order may be passed. In support of his submission, he referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Zarina Siddiqui Vs. A. Ramalingam @ R. Amarnathan, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 705 . In support of his submission, he referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Zarina Siddiqui Vs. A. Ramalingam @ R. Amarnathan, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 705 . He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Aniglase Yohannan Vs. Ramlatha & Ors., reported in (2005) 7 SCC 534 . 4. Learned advocate, Shri Bharda for the respondents referred to the background of the facts and submitted that admittedly the agreement to sell the land was entered into for consideration of Rs. 48,478/- and the amount was also paid like earnest money and Rs. 5,000/- towards consideration within 15 days, however, the defendant was required to execute the document of sale on payment of remaining consideration within stipulated time, however, the message was sent to the defendant through Dahyabhai Dayalji Patel about the willingness of the plaintiffs to pay balance amount and for execution of the document, however, the defendants deliberately refused and, therefore, efforts were made, however before the period of five months as stated expired, notice dated 20.03.1980 was given by the defendants for forfeiting the amount and witnesses of the defendant had not supported the version or defence of the defendants. Learned advocate, Shri Bharda referred to the writing of the contract, Exh. 23 and submitted that time limit was upto 28.02.1980. He submitted that advocate, Shri Deboo, who has been examined at Exh. 37 on behalf of the defendants has also not supported the defendant. He, therefore, submitted that writing and negotiation was made between the plaintiffs and one Dahyabhai Dayalji Patel on behalf of the defendants, however, Dahyabhai Dayalji Patel is not examined and, therefore, the submission with regard to the time limit or period of five months is misconceived. Learned advocate, Shri Bharda submitted that the agreement to sell is not disputed and willingness of the plaintiffs, which is sought to be questioned has been discussed by both the Courts and it has been clearly observed that the plaintiffs were willing to perform his part of the obligation. Learned advocate, Shri Bharda submitted that the issue with regard to the provision of the Registration Act would not be relevant and it could be admissible in evidence even if it is unregistered. Learned advocate, Shri Bharda submitted that the issue with regard to the provision of the Registration Act would not be relevant and it could be admissible in evidence even if it is unregistered. He further submitted that the readiness and willingness which has been much emphasized has been considered by both the Courts and it has also been observed by the first Appellate Court that Exhs. 28 & 29, telegrams were sent, which would go to suggest about the readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs. Therefore, learned advocate, Shri Bharda submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts and considering the provision of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, same may not be disturbed. 5. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present Second Appeal deserves consideration. 6. As could be seen from the background of the facts, there is no dispute with regard to the agreement to sell and the finding has been given with regard to the execution of the agreement to sale between the parties. The main emphasis on the readiness and willingness of the respondents-plaintiffs has also to be considered by the Court below, more particularly, with reference to telegrams, Exhs. 28 & 29, which would suggest that the respondents-plaintiffs were ready and willingness and have not committed any default in performing his part of the obligation. Further as referred to by learned advocate, Shri Bharda, the deposition of advocate, Shri Deboo suggests about the agreement and the fact that negotiations were made by one Dahyabhai Patel on behalf of the defendants. He has not been examined as a witness and, therefore, emphasis given on the period of five months that it was the essence of the contract, is misconceived, particularly, even if it is considered that the agreement was made on 25.12.1979 and telegrams have been sent, Exhs. 28 & 29. Moreover, notice which was given by the defendants even before the expiry of the period for forfeiture of the amount and the termination of the agreement, would suggest change of mind. Therefore, the submission made by learned advocate, Shri Gandhi about the willingness of the respondents-plaintiffs are misconceived. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down broad guidelines with regard to the scope of exercise of discretion under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code after the amendment in 1976. Therefore, the submission made by learned advocate, Shri Gandhi about the willingness of the respondents-plaintiffs are misconceived. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down broad guidelines with regard to the scope of exercise of discretion under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code after the amendment in 1976. The Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed a word of caution that unless the substantial question of law is involved, the concurrent findings of facts may not be easily disturbed. For that purpose, a useful reference can be made to the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gurdev Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kaki & Ors., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 546 . 8. Moreover even the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Zarina Siddiqui (supra), the observations have been made that efflux of time and escalation of the price in the property cannot be valid ground to deny the relief of specific performance. Therefore, though the submissions which have been made by learned advocate, Shri Gandhi, would not be justified. However in the facts and circumstances and on equitable ground having regard to the price escalation, the interest of justice would be served if the respondents-plaintiffs are directed to make some payment as per the jantri rate, which would meet the ends of justice. 9. In the circumstances, the respondents-original plaintiffs are directed to make the payment at the rate of 50% of the jantri rate as on 01.01.2015 i.e. an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Only), the date of filing of the present Second Appeal. Upon receipt of the said amount, sale deed is ordered to be executed as agreed by and between the parties by the appellants-original defendants in favour of the respondents-original plaintiffs. If the sale deed is not executed as stated above, the Superintendent or concerned COC of the Court is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent - original plaintiff within a period of six weeks. It is also made clear that the amount so deposited may be accepted by the appellant as per the order and the aforesaid execution of the sale deed shall take place irrespective of the fact whether amount deposited is accepted by the appellant-original defendants. It is also made clear that the amount so deposited may be accepted by the appellant as per the order and the aforesaid execution of the sale deed shall take place irrespective of the fact whether amount deposited is accepted by the appellant-original defendants. The respondents are directed to deposit the amount at the rate of 50% of the jantri rate as on 01.01.2015 i.e. an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Only) before the trial court within a period of four weeks. 10. With the above observations and directions, the present Second Appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent and the impugned judgment and order in Regular Civil Appeal No. 97/2005 by the Additional District Judge, Navsari dated 15.09.2015 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed in Special Civil Suit No. 66/1982 by the Civil Judge (SD), Navsari dated 12.03.1985 also stands modified accordingly. 11. In view of the disposal of the main Second Appeal, Civil Application for stay filed therein does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.