( 1 ) THE opponent filed Civil Suit No. 3247 of 1991 against the revision petitioner before the trial Court for a decree directing the revision petitioner to perform specifically his part of the oral agreement said to have been entered into between the parties on 10/05/1988, for transferring the business of the petitioner as a going concern, together with the goodwill and the tenancy rights of the petitioner, in respect of the suit property being Shed no. 1, and putting the opponent in actual and peaceful possession of the suit property, on the opponent tendering and depositing the balance consideration, and the amount of rent as may be payable by the opponent. According to the opponent-plaintiff as averred by it in its plaint, the petitioner-defendant had, on 10/05/1988, entered into an oral agreement with the opponent to transfer the business of the petitioner as a going concern together with the goodwill and the tenancy rights of the petitioner in respect of the suit property. It was for the specific performance of that agreement that the opponent filed the suit wherein inter alia, the opponent prayed for a decree for possession of the suit property. In the plaint, the opponent, inter alia, averred that the petitioner had, on 19/05/1991, illegally dispossessed the opponent of the suit premises. The suit as aforesaid came to be filed on 18/06/1991.

( 2 ) IN response to the summons, the petitioner filed the written statement traversing the averments made by the opponent. It appears that alongwith the suit, the opponent had taken out a Notice of Motion for certain interim injunctions. That Notice of Motion was finally decided by the trial Court on 6/04/1992, and the same was dismissed. Some nine days thereafter, on 15/04/1992, the opponent filed the Chamber Summons Exh. 80/ 81, with a prayer for permission to carry out certain amendments in the plaint. The opponent, by the proposed amendment, wanted to add in the plaint, a relief for possession of the suit property, based on Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short "the Act" ). In the proposed amendment, the opponent inter alia purported to say that as the suit has been filed within six months of the dispossession, the opponent was entitled to recover the possession of the suit property by virtue of Sec. 6 of the Act, de hors the agreement sought to be specifically enforced.

( 3 ) THE petitioner resisted the Chamber Summons. The learned trial Judge ultimately granted the Chamber Summons, and has permitted the opponent to carry out the amendment as proposed by the opponent. Hence the petitionerdefendant has come to this Court by way of this revision petition.

( 4 ) MR. U. R. Bhatt the learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to grant the amendment of the present nature for the suit as originally filed is one under Sec. 5 of the Act read with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, while, by the proposed amendment, the plaintiff wants to seek the relief for possession of the suit property, under Sec. 6 of the Act. According to mr. Bhatt, the two remedies are mutually exclusive and inconsistent, and the Court had, therefore, no jurisdiction to grant the amendment. Mr. Bhatt nextly submitted that on the date the amendment application was moved, the relief for possession based on Sec. 6 of the Act was grossly time barred. Therefore also, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to grant the amendment. Mr. J. T. Trivedi, the learned Advocate for the opponent, on the other hand, while trying to support the order of the trial Court on merits, contended that in a revision petition under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court should not interfere with the impugned order.

( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned Advocates, I think the revision petition should succeed. True, the jurisdiction under Sec. 115 C. P. Code is a restricted limited and narrow jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the jurisdiction and power