JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - Parties were heard on admission at length. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out two relevant issues being issue no.2 and issue no.4, which read as under: 3. Attention was then drawn to the findings of the trial court on both the issues, which insofar as relevant, read as under: Issue No.2: Issue No.4:" 4. Submissions were made that in the teeth of finding recorded on issue no.4 pertaining to limitation, the finding on issue no.2 cannot be sustained and in any case, both the findings being mutually destructive cannot stand together. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent made submissions that even if the suit has been held to be within limitation while deciding issue no.4, on account of findings on issue no.2 pertaining to lack of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, the decree passed by the trial court, as upheld by the first appellate court, does not call for any interference. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present appeal: (1) Whether the findings on issue no.2 pertaining to readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in performing his part of the contract can be sustained in view of the finding recorded by the trial court on issue no.4 pertaining to limitation, wherein, the suit has been held within limitation based on the finding of the court regarding repeated requests having been made by the plaintiff for performance of the contract? (2) Whether the finding on issue no.2 can be sustained in the teeth of finding on issue no.4, which finding, for lack of any challenge by the defendant by way of cross objection, has attained finality? (3) Whether the findings of the two courts below on issue no.2 can be sustained based on the material available on record? 7. Admit. Issue notice. 8. As Mr. Rameshwar Headu appears for the sole respondent, no need to issue fresh notice. 9. (3) Whether the findings of the two courts below on issue no.2 can be sustained based on the material available on record? 7. Admit. Issue notice. 8. As Mr. Rameshwar Headu appears for the sole respondent, no need to issue fresh notice. 9. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in a suit for eviction filed by the respondent against the appellant, a decree has been passed by the trial court, which has been upheld by the first appellate court, however, in the second appeal filed by the appellant, the decree for eviction passed by the trial court, as upheld by the first appellate court, has been stayed. 10. In view of the above fact situation, no interim order is required to be passed in the present appeal. 11. In view thereof, the stay application stands disposed of leaving it open for the appellants to file fresh application, in case any occasion arises. 12. Stay Application Disposed of.