JUDGMENT : H.P.SANDESH, J. This appeal is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the defendant entered into an agreement of sale dated 04.10.2007 agreeing to execute the sale deed for sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- and as on the date of agreement, he has received an amount of Rs.1,01,000/- and agreed to pay the remaining amount within three months subject to furnishing of the documents for registration by the defendant and also he has to clear the bank loan and he will come forward to execute the sale deed for him or any nominee and inspite of providing the documents, he took additional amount of Rs.50,000/- on 25.10.2007 as well as an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.11.2007 and in all he has received an amount of Rs.2,51,000/- but the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed, hence, legal notice was issued and when he did not execute the sale deed, filed the suit for the relief of specific performance based on the sale agreement dated 3. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues as well as additional Issue that whether he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and also one witness as PW2 and got marked the document at Ex.P1 to P3. On the other hand, defendant himself examined as DW1 but not produced any documentary evidence. The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and also one witness as PW2 and got marked the document at Ex.P1 to P3. On the other hand, defendant himself examined as DW1 but not produced any documentary evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered Issue No.1 as negative since the defendant took the defence that time is an essence of contract and the trial court also considered Additional Issue No.1 with regard to ready and willingness and answered the same as affirmative having considered that admittedly as on the date of the agreement, an amount Rs.1,01,000/- was paid and out of remaining amount, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as additional amount was also paid and in paragraph 17, the trial court taken note of the fact that DW1 categorically admitted that he has not cleared the bank loan and he has not produced any document as stipulated in the agreement and it is further observed that it is crystal clear that the said three months time is not for the plaintiff but it is for the defendant to clear the loan at Sharada Mahila Co- operative Bank and the trial court also taken note of the fact that an additional amount was also received to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- on two dates immediately after execution of the sale agreement. Hence, the trial court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and time is not essence of the contract and the defendant though received the additional amount as well as advance amount, he did not clear the loan amount. Hence, it is fault on the part of the defendant in not coming forward to execute the sale deed and hence, the trial court grant the relief of specific performance. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.214/2022. Hence, it is fault on the part of the defendant in not coming forward to execute the sale deed and hence, the trial court grant the relief of specific performance. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.214/2022. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the points and on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered the point as negative taking note of the additional payment as well as advance payment and in paragraph 19, it is held that the time is the essence of contract and plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and on re- appreciation of material on record, the first appellate court comes to the conclusion that inspite of payment of additional amount also the defendant did not produce the documents and not clear the loan in the bank thus, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the document of agreement of sale wherein three months time was stipulated and the respondent did not comply with the terms and the counsel also would vehemently contend that both the Courts are not justified in decreeing the suit even though respondent has failed to establish that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Even though the respondent has not adduced evidence on additional issue after remanding the matter, the trial court erroneously comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Hence, the very reasoning given by both the Courts are erroneous. Thus, this Court has to frame the substantive question of law admitting the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also on perusal of the reasoning given by both the Courts it discloses that both the Courts have relied upon the document of Ex.P1. Hence, the very reasoning given by both the Courts are erroneous. Thus, this Court has to frame the substantive question of law admitting the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also on perusal of the reasoning given by both the Courts it discloses that both the Courts have relied upon the document of Ex.P1. No doubt, sale consideration was fixed at Rs.6,50,000/- and earnest money of Rs.1,01,000/- was received on the date of agreement itself and recital in the agreement is very clear that defendant has to furnish the documents for registration as well as he has to clear the loan which he had availed and the sale of the property is also for the purpose of clearing the loan amount and the document is also very clear that the agreement was dated 04.10.2007, advance amount was received on the same day and within a period of 20 days, an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- was received and within one month also, again an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was received and though in the agreement, no such recital with regard to the payment is concerned, but the plaintiff himself made the payment when the demand was made to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- as an additional amount. Hence, it is clear that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to obtain the sale deed but the appellant/defendant did not clear the loan as well as not furnished any document and to that effect there is an admission on the part of DW1 in the cross- examination and the same has been considered by both the Courts while appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. When such being the case, the very contention of the counsel for the appellant, this Court has to frame substantive question of law regarding plaintiff was not ready to perform his part of contract does not arise since both oral and documentary evidence placed on record is very clear that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and time is also an essence of contract subject to the defendant has to furnish the documents as well as to clear the loan. Hence, rightly taken note of question of fact as well as question of law hence, I do not find any error in the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court regarding re- appreciation of material on record particularly taking into note of the contents of Ex.P1. When such being the case, the question of framing any substantive question of law does not arise and hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.