It appears that inspite of personal service of notice upon the opposite parties they have not appeared so far.

2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 6.8.2002 passed in Title Suit No. 19 of 1995 whereby the trial court has refused to grant the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint.

3. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the aforementioned Title Suit for specific performance of contract of sale, It is stated that in paragraph 11 of the plaint that the plaintiff has missed to plead about the relevant dates of agreement entered into between the parties to sell the property. It is stated by the petitioner that in between the words "dates" and "when" the words and "lastly on 2.9.95" be added by the said amendment in para 11 of the plaint. In this way the plaintiff-petitioner wants to add the last date on which a request was made to the defendant for execution and registration of the sale deed. The court-below rejected the amendment application only on the ground that the alleged date of request sought to be inserted by the plaintiff-petitioner by way of amendment lies within 3 years from the date of agreement to sell. The learned court below proceeded on the basis that in a suit of specific performance of contract the limitation is 3 years from the date of agreement. In my opinion, the court below is misdirected in law so far as it held that in a suit for specific performance of contract the limitation is 3 years from the date of agreement.

4. The Limitation Act prescribes the limitation of 3 years but the period of limitation shall start when the party refuses to perform his part of the contract. In that view of the matter, the limitation shall be decided along with other issues at the time of final hearing of the suit and the amendment so prayed for by the plaintiff-petitioner should have been allowed.

5. For the aforesaid reasons this civil revision application is allowed and the impugned order passed by the court below is set aside. Consequently the amendment sought for by the plaintiff-petitioner is allowed.