https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171357 Section 100 CPC permits a second appeal only on a precisely formulated substantial question of law, so concurrent findings of fact on readiness and willingness, abandonment, and the nature of the contract cannot be reopened by reappreciating evidence. The High Court therefore could not interfere merely because another factual inference was possible. In specific performance of an immovable property contract, time is ordinarily not of the essence, but the promisee must still act within a reasonable time having regard to the contract terms and surrounding circumstances. On the evidence, repeated demands, notice after the agreed date, and prompt suit showed reasonable diligence, entitling the plaintiff to specific performance. en-us Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:04:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171357 Section 100 CPC permits a second appeal only on a precisely formulated substantial question of law, so concurrent findings of fact on readiness and willingness, abandonment, and the nature of the contract cannot be reopened by reappreciating evidence. The High Court therefore could not interfere merely because another factual inference was possible. In specific performance of an immovable property contract, time is ordinarily not of the essence, but the promisee must still act within a reasonable time having regard to the contract terms and surrounding circumstances. On the evidence, repeated demands, notice after the agreed date, and prompt suit showed reasonable diligence, entitling the plaintiff to specific performance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171357