Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. - The plaintiff of a suit filed for specific performance of contract challenges an order rejecting his prayer for amendment of the plaint made at the argument stage on the ground that if the same is allowed it would take away from the defendants their legal right which had accrued to them by lapse of time. 2. The facts are short. The proposed amendment runs as follows "and the plaintiff is still ready to perform his part and get the Kebala executed. " 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi V/s. Prabhakar mohanlal Kalwar, 1990 1 Supreme Court Cases 166 the order in question should be set aside. . 4. In my view, there is substance in the contention. In Gananan jaikishan Joshis case (supra) it was laid down as follows ; "in the present case no fresh cause of action was sought to be introduced by the amendment applied for. All that the appellant sought to do was to complete the cause of action for specific performance for which relief he had already prayed. It was only that one averment required in law to be made in a plaint in a suit for specific performance in view of the provisions of sub-section (c) of Sec.16 of the Specific Relief act was not made, probably on account of some oversight or mistake of the lawyer who drafted the plaint and that error was sought to be rectified by the amendment applied for. There was no fresh cause of action sought to be introduced by the amendment and hence, no question of causing any injustice to the respondent on that account arose. " 5. The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court is binding on me in preference to Ram Chandra Sashtri V/s. Manohar Lal Gupta, 1986 BLJR 324 relied upon in the impugned order by the court below. In the said view of the matter, no option is left for me but to allow this application. 6. This Civil Revision is, thus, allowed and the impugned order is set aside, however, subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-. The trial court shall also grant leave to the Opposite party to file additional written statement, if they desire. 7. In the said view of the matter, no option is left for me but to allow this application. 6. This Civil Revision is, thus, allowed and the impugned order is set aside, however, subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-. The trial court shall also grant leave to the Opposite party to file additional written statement, if they desire. 7. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the Opposite party, there shall be no order as to cost of this court. Civil Revision Allowed.