that time should be the essence, will be a cruel joke on him, and will result in injustice. Their Lordships further held saying that the precedents from an era, when high inflation was unknown, holding that time is not of the essence of the contract in regard to immovable properties, may no longer apply, not because the principle laid down therein is unsound or erroneous, but the circumstances that existed when the said principle was evolved, no longer exist. Adding to the misery is the delay in disposal of cases relating to specific performance, as suits and appeals therefrom routinely take two to three decades to attain finality. As a result, an owner agreeing to sell a property for Rs.1,00,000/- and received Rs.10,000/- as advance may be required to execute a sale deed a quarter century later by receiving the remaining Rs.90,000/-, when the property value has risen to a crore of rupees. When the above two rulings are seen in juxtaposition, the change of judicial attitude towards timelines agreed upon between parties and the need of adherence to those timelines of parties and the way the dispute has to be resolved in such context changed in a great measure. However, I must make it clear that in the present appeal the principle followed is that the order of performance of obligations
