Paripoornan, J.

1. The respondent in E.A. No. 328 of 1991 in E.P. No. 121 of 1991 in O.S. No. 77 of 1974 (judgment debtor) Sub Court, Kochi, is the revision petitioner. The decree-holder petitioner in the Court below is the sole respondent in this revision. The decree holder filed an application to amend the execution petition. It was stated that there is an omission to claim interest for the entire principal amount in the original execution petition. The revision petitioner (respondent in E.A. No. 328 of 1991) objected to the above and stated that the petition lacks bona-fides. The Court below allowed the amendment. The judgment debtor has come up in revision.

2. I heard counsel.

3. Counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr. R.D. Shenoi, vehemently contended that the prayer to amend the execution petition is barred by limitation. The Court below was in error in allowing the amendment. Counsel for the decree-holder (respondent) submitted that the petition to amend the execution petition was filed bona fide, and there is no bar of limitation.

4. The decree in O.S. No. 77 of 1974 was passed on October 23, 1978. E.P. No. 121 of 1981 was filed on November 25, 1981. The Court below hel