1. This revision has been filed against the order refusing to allow the application for amendment on the ground that the application is time barred.

2. The counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that there is no question of delay inasmuch as amendment applications have been necessitated after the Division Bench of this Court had rendered its judgment in O.S.A.Nos.250 and 251 of 1996 filed by the petitioner herein against the decree in the suit for specific performance filed by the first respondent and the decree in the suit for bare injunction filed by the petitioner. It is only in accordance with the findings therein that the applications have been filed. It was further submitted that the amendments sought to be introduced are in line with the existing pleadings and do not introduce a new case or a cause of action; nor are they belated. The learned counsel relied on the following judgments in support of his case :

B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai , A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 614, Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy , 2001 (8) SCC 115; K.S. Alagarsamy v. P. Natarajan , 1997 (1) CTC 292; Muthammal v. Tamburati, 1997 (2) CTC 12; Kalavathi v. Chitra , 199