A. K. PADHI, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs-petitioners challenge the order dated 17-8-1989 of the Sub-Judge, Cuttack passed in Title Suit No. 28 of 1984.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed for specific performance of contract which was numbered at Title Suit No. 28 of 1984. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the defendant admitted the execution of the agreement of the contract, but took the specific plea that the contract was subsequently rescinded. After the evidence was closed and the case was fixed for argument, the defendant filed an application to amend the written statement to insert the date of recision of the contract and also prayed for some other formal amendments. The learned trial court after considering the prayer for amendment, came to the conclusion that it is necessary for proper adjudication and shall not change the nature and character of the suit.

( 3 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioners submits that since the amendment which is sought for has been prayed only with the intention to fit with the evidence already adduced, such prayer should not be granted. The learned advocate further submits that at this belated stage the amendment of the written statement s