ORDER The Civil Revision application has been filed against the order dated 3.2.1997 passed in Title Suit no. 68 of 1987 whereby the petition filed on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. 2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed the above mentioned suit for specific performance of contract. The defendants - petitioners filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff-opposite party. The plaintiff filed a petition for amendment of the plaint. The proposed amendment was "that the plaintiff was all along willing and ready to perform his part of the contract whereas the defendants had neglected and avoided deliberately to perform their part of contract." 3. The defendants-petitioners filed a rejoinder stating therein that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit and it was filed at a belated stage when the argument of the parties was going to be completed. The defendants would be deprived of the valuable right accrued to them if the proposed amendment is allowed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the court below has committed error in allowing the amendment petition as the amendment was filed at a belated stage when the argument of the parties was going on. Besides, it is violation of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and the suit may be dismissed on this score alone. The valuable right accrued to the petitioner would be taken away by such amendment. Besides, it would amount to introduction of new cause of action, which cannot be allowed at this stage. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the proposed amendment was not introduction of a new cause of action. The necessary ingredients of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act were not completely absent in the plaint. The proposed amendment is merely a clarification, which can be allowed at any stage. 5. In the order impugned the court below has referred the averments made in paragraphs 17 to 20 of the plaint and has stated that it has been averred in the plaint that in the month of December, 1986 he met the defendant- petitioner no.1 and requested him to take rest of the consideration money i.e. Rs.2000/- and execute a sale deed as per the contract but the defendant-petitioner no.1 evaded and requested to wait for three months as he was busy in his business. In the middle of March, 1987 the plaintiff again requested the defendant to execute the sale deed but he again evaded and sought one month time for execution of the sale deed. Thereafter, several times the plaintiff met the defendant and requested to execute the sale deed but he evaded to execute the sale deed and took time for execution. On 10th September, 1987 the defendant refused to perform his part of contract i.e. to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff served notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on him but he did not execute the sale although the plaintiff was always willing and ready to perform his part of contract. The court, therefore, held that it cannot be said that cause of action was ab initio completely absent in the plaint and, accordingly, allowed the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff. 6. In the case of M/s. Ganesh Trading Company-v-Moji Rax, A.I.R. 1978 Supreme Court - 484, the Apex Court held that:- "Procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. Provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between parties, and to prevent deviation from the course which litigation on particular causes of action must take. It is true that, if a plaintiff seeks to alter the cause of action itself and to introduce indirectly through an amendment of his pleadings, an entirely new or inconsistent cause of action, amounting virtually to the substitution of a new plaint or a new cause of action in place of what was originally there, the Court will refuse to permit it if it amounts to depriving the party against which a suit is pending or any right which may be accrued in its favour due to lapse of time. But, mere failure to set out even an essential fact does not by itself constitute a new cause of action. A cause of action is constituted by the whole bundle of essential facts which the plaintiff must prove before he can succeed in his suit. It must be antecedent to the institution of the suit. But, mere failure to set out even an essential fact does not by itself constitute a new cause of action. A cause of action is constituted by the whole bundle of essential facts which the plaintiff must prove before he can succeed in his suit. It must be antecedent to the institution of the suit. If any essential fact is lacking from averments in the plaint the cause of action will be defective in that case, an attempt to supply the omission has been and could some time be viewed as equivalent to an introduction of a new cause of action which cured of its shortcomings, has really become a good cause of action. This, however, is not the only possible interpretation to be put on every defective state of pleadings. Defective pleadings are generally curable if the cause of action sought to be brought out was not ab initio completely absent. Even every defective pleadings may be permitted to be cured, so as to constitute a cause of action where there was none, provided necessary conditions, such as payment of either any additional court fees, which may be payable, or, of costs of the other side are complied with. It is only if lapse of time has barred the remedy on a newly constituted cause of action that the Court should, ordinarily, refuse prayers for amendment of pleadings." 7. Therefore, it is evident that the Apex Court has held that defective pleadings should generally be allowed to be cured if the cause of action sought to be brought by amendment was not ab initio completely absent. But where the cause of action was completely absent and by lapse of time it was barred, the court should ordinarily refuse prayer for amendment of pleadings. 8. But where the cause of action was completely absent and by lapse of time it was barred, the court should ordinarily refuse prayer for amendment of pleadings. 8. Similarly in the case of Dewali Lal & ors -v- Sardar Baldev Singh & anr, 1986 B.L.J. 473, a Division Bench of this Court has held that: "In substance where the plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that he was not but defendant was evading to perform his part of the contract even if it is conceded for the sake of argument that these allegations did not fully meet the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and Form No. 47 of Appendix A of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be said that the cause of action was ab initio completely absent from the plaint and if it was not ab initio completely absent form the plaint, the court was quite justified in allowing the amendment. The amendment sought for was only by way of clarification and not that an attempt to introduce a new cause of action through amendment." 9. In the instant case it is evident that the court below has referred paragraphs 17 to 20 of the plaint wherefrom it is manifest that the plaintiff approached several times the defendant for execution of sale deed but he evaded to perform his part of contract and lastly he refused to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff also sent notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the defendant or execution of sale deed but he did not execute the sale deed and as much it cannot be said that cause of action was ab initio completely absent from the plaint. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that order of the court below allowing amendment, as sought for by the plaintiff, is bad in law. 10. However, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in the case of Ramswaroop Singh & ors. -v- Bljoy Kumar Singh, A.I.R. 1986 Patna-60, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act requires that:- "In a suit for specific performance of a contract the plaintiff must ever in the plaint that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. -v- Bljoy Kumar Singh, A.I.R. 1986 Patna-60, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act requires that:- "In a suit for specific performance of a contract the plaintiff must ever in the plaint that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. In the absence of such averment the suit for specific performance must fail and no amount of evidence adduced in the case can help the plaintiff in getting a decree in his favour. An amendment of the plaint to introduce the averment that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract sought for at a late stage after the close of the case of the defendants cannot be allowed." 11. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that ratio decided by the Apex Court in the case of M/S. Ganesh Trading Company (supra) has not been considered nor there is anything to show that there was case of the plaintiff that cause of action was not completely absent from the plaint rather it appears from the said judgment that cause of action was ab initio completely absent in the plaint and as such the decision relied upon by the petitioners does not stand for their rescue and the said decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 12. Thus, on consideration, as discussed above, I do not find any illegality/infirmity in the order impugned. Accordingly, this application is dismissed but without cost. Application Dismissed.