After considering the submissions and perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the suit has been filed in the year 1988 wherein the plaintiff has prayed for relief with regard to the deed dated 01.06.1988. It further transpires that the defendant nos. 3 and 4 of the suit filed the written statement on 28.11.1988 and they raised their assertions with regard to the sale deed and the gift deed against which the plaintiff at present wants to incorporate the relief by way of amendment. The suit thereafter proceeded and even during the cross examination, the defendants put the relevant questions to the plaintiff with regard to the sale deed and gift deed. The plaintiff did not take any steps earlier either in view of the assertions made by the defendants in the written statement as far back as on 28.11.1988 or even thereafter when the specific questions were put to the plaintiff during cross examination. It was only when the suit was posted for argument that the plaintiff came out with the prayer for amendment in the plaint praying for incorporation of the new relief with regard to the gift deed and further for incorporation of certain facts with regard to the sale deed dated 01.06.1988 for which the relief was already prayed. The learned court below, after considering the submissions and facts and circumstances of the case, has recorded the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to explain as to what prevented him from seeking the amendment at the earlier stage of the suit. At this stage,
