1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 998 OF 2007 Balu Govinda Vadda........Appellant versus Sadashiv Ramgonda Patil & ors........ Respondents. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan adv. for the Appellant CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 10th DECEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Patwardhan learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is original defendant no.1. The Plaintiff/respondent nos. 1 to 7's suit for specific performance of contract was decreed by the trial court. The appellant's appeal was also dismissed by the judgment and decree which is being challenged in the present second appeal. Both the lower courts below concurrently held that the agreement dated 8-4-1974 executed by the father of the present appellant in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 7 is proved. It was further concurrently held that the respondent/plaintiffs 1 to 7 have also proved their readiness and willingness to perform their part of agreement. The suit was also held to have been filed within limitation and it was also held that time was not the essence of contract. 3. Mr. Patwardhan submitted that the suit was not filed within limitation. He also submitted that the agreement was 2 executed on 8-4-1974 by father of defendant. However the defendant's father died on 28-3-1978 and thereafter the present respondent/plaintiff 1 to 7 gave notice for the first time on 28- 5-1985 to which present appellant gave reply on 14-6-1985 and thereafter suit was filed on 14-6-1988. He submitted that if above dates are considered then the suit is filed within limitation. This submission, in my considered view, has no merit. There is no dispute that the reply was given by the present appellant on 14-6-1988, refusing specific performance. However there is no material on record to show that on which date this reply was received by the respondent/plaintiff nos.1 to 7. There is also no dispute that suit was filed on 14-6-1988. The lower courts below observed that respondent/plaintiff 1 to 7 must have received this reply after 14-6-1985 and therefore suit filed on 14-6-1988 is within limitation. I agree with the observations of the lower courts blow. In view of these observations it cannot be said that the suit is not within limitation. Both the courts below have correctly decreed the suit. I do not find any error so as to enable me to interfere in this second appeal. Second appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R. V. More, J.)