Venkatappayya and ors. Vs. Venkatapathi and ors.

- section 16 (1) (c) :[tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] ready and willing to perform-concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before supreme court held, concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. section 20: [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] whether time is the essence of contract held, many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. - 'on the perusal of the application' clearly indicate nothing else than that perusal is required of the judge before giving his sanction.1. we do not think that the general principles of justice as to hearing the other side is applicable to this case, since the words in the section. 'on the perusal of the application' clearly indicate nothing else than that perusal is required of the judge before giving his sanction. these words render untenable the position that the judge is bound to do more, that is in the way of giving notice, hearing parties, and so on, if the application itself satisfies him. if any such regular preliminary enquiry had been intended the language of the section must have been very different.2. we, therefore, hold the judge was wrong in considering the sanction void for want of notice prior to its being granted.3. we reverse his decree and remand the suit for disposal according to law. costs to abide and follow the event.