( 1 ) THIS revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 29-6-1994 passed by the learned Munsiff, Ramdurg, allowing LA. III moved by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 234 of 1990. By the amendment, the plaintiff sought to remove a technical defect in the plaint i. e. , lack of averment which is required to be made under Section 16 (c) of Specific relief Act read with explanation thereof namely there was no specific averment in expressed terms that the plaintiff is and has always been ready to perform his part of contract. This allegation being wanted and as it was not there in expressed terms, the plaintiff moved the application for amendment and the Court below after considering the matter, allowed the amendment. So defendants felt aggrieved and have come up in revision.

( 2 ) IT has been contended before me by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the Court below should not have allowed the amendment as on the date if it would have been filed in amended form, suit would have been barred by limitation and the plaintiff would not have been entitled to the decree for specific performance of contract. This suit was filed no doubt within t