S.S.Sodhi, J.

1. This controversy here pertains to amendment of plaint.

2. The plaintiff-Manohar Lal, filed a suit for injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating the land in suit. The relief claimed being founded upon agreement of June 8, 1970. This suit was filed in June, 1981. It was when the suit was at the stage of arguments that on January 25, 1988, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaintiff with a view to see the relief of specific performance of the agreement of June 8, 1970. In making this application, it was also stated by the counsel for the plaintiff that if the amendment is allowed, no further evidence would be led by the plaintiff on the re-framed issues. In other words, no further delay in the disposal of the suit would be entailed thereby. The amendment was, however, opposed by the defendants and it was consequently disallowed mainly for the reason that grave injustice would be caused if it is allowed as the period of limitation had already elapsed.

3. There can be no manner of doubt that the application for amendment is much delayed, but delay itself, it is now well-established, is no ground to refuse a amendment if no such i