Binod Kumar Roy, J.

1. - The plaintiff of a suit filed for specific performance of contract challenges an order rejecting his prayer for amendment of the plaint made at the argument stage on the ground that if the same is allowed it would take away from the defendants their legal right which had accrued to them by lapse of time.

2. The facts are short. The proposed amendment runs as follows "and the plaintiff is still ready to perform his part and get the Kebala executed. "

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi V/s. Prabhakar mohanlal Kalwar, 1990 1 Supreme Court Cases 166 the order in question should be set aside. .

4. In my view, there is substance in the contention. In Gananan jaikishan Joshis case (supra) it was laid down as follows ;

"in the present case no fresh cause of action was sought to be introduced by the amendment applied for. All that the appellant sought to do was to complete the cause of action for specific performance for which relief he had already prayed. It was only that one averment required in law to be made in a plaint in a suit for specific performance in view o