Section 12 and 22 Contract Act (IX of 1872), Section 55 Treaty's explicit discrimination, time consummation as the essence of the contract Defendant neither executed the sale agreement nor recovered the outstanding balance. Denied, but denied the specific performance of the contract because of the delay caused by the claimant in terminating the contract because property prices had risen substantially during that time, which was not always the point of the contract, Performance that depends on a variety of factors such as attendance attendance, unexpected events and intentions of the parties, The Supreme Court was able to ascertain from the contents of the agreement that the conduct of the contracting parties and the circumstances in which it was taken into consideration, if, by specific performance, the plaintiff was unlawful to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court must then be denied. The court and the plaintiffs who amended the judgment and decree passed by the HC were instructed to pay Rs. 30,000 as additional consideration for the reduction of currency value and increase of property prices. Appeal dismissed
