1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 590 of 2010 Sham Bansilal Bhutada ....Appellant Vs. Sham Dattatraya Adsare ....Respondent Mr. R.A. Thorat with Mr. Tushar Sonawane, advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Dilip Shinde, advocate for respondent. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A..SAYED, JJ DATED:- JULY 07, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik dated 7th December, 2009 in Special Civil Suit No. 190 of 2005. The trial Court has dismissed the claim for specific performance. The Appellant-plaintiff has questioned the correctness of the said decision. The trial Court has essentially found as of fact that time was essence of the contract and the last date for execution of sale deed was stipulated as 30th 2 June, 2000. That condition is found in clause-5 of the Agreement. It provides that the transaction shall be completed and sale deed should be executed upto 30th June, 2000. Indeed, in clause 6(4) there is provision for extension of time but that was possible only by mutual agreement and not unilateral extension. There is nothing to show that even after 30th June, 2000, the defendant was inclined to continue with the transaction. The fact that the defendant accepted the amount offered to him on 4th November, 1999 would make no difference as that part payment was not sufficient to fulfill the obligation of the plaintiff. As per the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the plaintiff was obliged to execute the sale deed on or before 30th June, 2000. The argument of the Plaintiff that certain steps were not taken by the Defendant which also delayed the execution of the sale deed is of no avail. The trial Court has considered even this grievance of the Plaintiff and has opined that though steps could not have been taken even after the execution of the sale deed, the said conditions were not quintessence for execution of the sale deed. The reasons recorded by the trial Court, in particular, in Paragraph 13 of the impugned decision which are supported by evidence on record leaves no manner of doubt that the time was essence of the contract and the sale deed ought to have been executed on or before 30th June, 2000 which has not happened in this case. 3 3. We have no reason to depart from the finding so recorded by the trial Court. The trial Court has also noticed the admission of the Plaintiff to the effect that the execution of the sale deed before 30th June, 2000 was the main and important condition. That admission is found at page-32 of the additional paper-book handed in by the Counsel for the Appellant. It is not a case of manifest error committed by the trial Court in arriving at the said conclusion. Once the said finding is to be upheld, it would necessarily follow that the suit filed on 29th July, 2005 would be barred by limitation. 4. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, there is no substance in this Appeal. The same is dismissed. (A.A.SAYED, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)