Court case(1997) 3 SCC 1

By an agreement of 1978 the owners of a house in Madurai agreed to sell it to the plaintiff, the sale deed to be executed within six months, by which time the owners were to vacate a tenant and the plaintiff to pay the balance. For about two and a half years the plaintiff did nothing: he neither tendered the money nor called upon the vendors to perform. When the vendors refused, he sued for specific performance. The trial court dismissed the suit; the High Court decreed it on the footing that time was not of the essence.

The Supreme Court restored the dismissal. The rule that time is not of the essence in agreements to sell immovable property does not mean that a purchaser may wait indefinitely; the court cannot be oblivious to the steep rise in urban land prices, and a purchaser who sleeps over his rights for years, doing nothing that the contract required of him, has not shown readiness and willingness under s. 16(c). Specific performance being discretionary (old s. 20), such conduct was a good ground to refuse it even if the suit was within limitation.