M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application is directed against an order dated 18th march, 1992 whereby an application for amendment has been disallowed. The learned trial judge disallowed the amendment on two grounds the first being that it was belated insofar as it was filed at a point of time when the matter was at a stage where the issues were framed, the evidence was concluded and the case had reached the stage of arguments. Secondly, he has observed that apart from other considerations, the original suit was one for injunction whereas the application for amendment sought to incorporate a prayer for partition. This was an entirely new, different and distinct case and the reliefs that were sought to be incorporated through the amendment were new, and the learned trial judge disallowed it on the ground that it was a complete alteration of the cause of action. It is against this order that the present civil revision petition has been preferred. ( 2 ) THE petitioner's learned Advocate vehemently submitted that an amendment is permissible at any stage of the proceedings and she pointed out that in the facts and circumstances of the case where it came to the notice of the learned Advocate conducting the proceedings in the trial court that it was necessary to pray for a partition of the disputed property as an application for injunction simpliciter would be an incomplete remedy, that the application was made. A submission was advanced that no prejudice would be caused to the other side insofar as the court would only have to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief for partition and that it would not really involve a total reopening of the proceedings. The further submission was that by not allowing the amendment, the plaintiff would have to file a separate suit for partition which would result in multiplicity of proceedings. It was not in the interest of either of the parties that one more proceeding to be instituted and it was therefore submitted that it is far more expedient that the amendment be allowed and that the entire dispute be resolved in this proceeding. It was not in the interest of either of the parties that one more proceeding to be instituted and it was therefore submitted that it is far more expedient that the amendment be allowed and that the entire dispute be resolved in this proceeding. ( 3 ) THE petitioner's learned Advocate relied on an earlier decision of this court in Dundappa Laxmappa and another v Mallappa Bhimappa Bolanatti, Wherein, this court held that the incorporation of the prayer for partition in a suit filed by the joint holder for injunction simpliciter was permissible and that the same could be allowed. This court had occasion to rely on two decisions in Ma Shwe Mya v Maung Mo Hnaung and the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v National Building Material Supply, gurgaon. On the facts of those cases the courts had, at that point of time observed that a certain liberality of approach is necessary while considering amendment applications. This court in the decision referred to supra has relied on that principle and has permitted the amendment. I am in agreement with the earlier views expressed which is now well-settled law, insofar as a court will not refuse corrective action if it is genuine and bona fide and if it is done in good time but more importantly, if it is within the framework of the law. ( 4 ) AS far as the submission of the petitioner's learned Advocate that the prayer for partition is not altogether foreign to the relief that has been asked for in the facts and circumstances of the case is concerned, there may be some justification in this submission though one needs to bear in mind the fact that it is virtually a border line case because a suit for injunction is for a very restricted relief whereas the suit for partition is based on an entirely different cause of action. A party in possession may validly be entitled to apply for an injunction against a party interfering with that possession but a party desirous of applying for partition of a property will have to make out an entirely different and more composite case whereunder it will first have to be demonstrated that the party has adequate legal grounds for claiming partition. The cause of action therefore is far more composite and to a large extent virtually different, I have referred to this aspect of the matter because the scheme of the law whereby amendments are permitted takes into account a situation whereby a court is to proceed within the original framework or cause of action with minor modifications. The law does not permit a radical or complete change or virtually alterations of the cause of action because this leads to insurmountable difficulties and in these circumstances, the only solution is to file a fresh suit. The aspect of timing is also of some consequence because with the pressures on the courts, it is not permissible to go backwards and forwards or to allow the litigation to go in circles and in this regard, experience has shown that the finest method of dilating a proceeding is to present a belated application for amendment which would mean that one has to go back to the stage of the pleadings, reframe the issues and re-allow the evidence and since all these have been once gone through, it would mean approximately three times as much of judicial time and expenditure. That is the reason why in a long line of decisions the courts have culled out a test by asking themselves whether the allowing of such an application results in prejudice to the opposite party. If the answer is very much in the affirmative, the amendment application cannot be allowed. This court, in the decision referred to supra had occasion to examine this last aspect of the matter and only because the record indicated that little or no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party, the amendment was allowed. ( 5 ) ON the facts of the present case, the position is different. The suit was instituted in the year 1984 and in 1992, after the lapse of 8 years it had reached the stage of judgment. At that point of time, an application for amendment was made and it would be impossible to hold that this was in order to correct any mistake or error. Furthermore, the application virtually sought to make out a new and far more composite case, in other words to completely alter the cause of action. At that point of time, an application for amendment was made and it would be impossible to hold that this was in order to correct any mistake or error. Furthermore, the application virtually sought to make out a new and far more composite case, in other words to completely alter the cause of action. The learned trial judge is right when he points out that had the amendment been allowed, it would have virtually restarted the proceedings and in all probability subjecting the defendant to another ten years of litigation in the trial court. The prejudice to the opposite party is therefore manifest in these circumstances. In this background, the learned trial judge was more than fully justified in having refused the application for amendment and i do not see any reason to interfere with that decision. ( 6 ) THE petitioner's learned Advocate did advance a strong plea that if the plaintiff desires to press the partition prayer that it could mean filing a second suit. If the law permits, the plaintiff could do so. That is a separate matter but it is no ground on which the disposal of this suit can be held up nor is there any justification for restarting and complicating these proceedings that were almost concluded. The application is hopelessly belated and on the facts of the present case, it would be extremely difficult to hold that it is also a bona fide application. ( 7 ) THE time has now come when the courts will have to discriminate between timely and genuine applications for amendment and those which do not fall in this category and the courts have to be equally strict in pruning the genuine and valid applications from the ones which must necessarily be disallowed. This application is in the latter category and has therefore been rightly rejected. ( 8 ) IN the result, the civil revision petition fails and stands disposed of. The interim order to stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. The trial court is directed to hear the parties and dispose of the proceeding expeditiously. --- *** --- .