instituted by the plaintiff was within limitation and that the plaintiff was all along ready and willing to perform his part of contract. He submitted that since the Plaintiff has deposited the amount as per the directions of the trial court, it cannot be said that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He further submitted that the courts below have rightly held that the suit for specific performance was not barred by limitation. In any case when this court allowed the civil revision application on 2-2-1984, this court did not keep the issue of limitation open. This court also did not direct that the amendment permitted by it shall not relate back to the date of the suit and to the extent permitted by it, shall be deemed to have been brought before the court on the date of which the application seeking amendment was filed. In other words, he submitted that the issue of limitation was not left open for being agitated by the parties. Once this court had allowed the amendment though on 2-21984, it relates back to the date of the institution of the suit namely 8-121975. He further submitted that the trial court decreed the suit. The Appellate Court confirmed the decree. The discretion exercised by the Appellate Court cannot be termed as arbitrary or capricious. He, therefore, submitted that since the appeal does not raise any question of law much less any substantial question of law, the same is liable to be dismissed.
