CRP 2/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.N.SARMA JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr BR Dey, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners a nd Ms S, Senapati, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite party. 2. The subject matter of challenge in this revision petition is the orde r dated 19.8.2010 passed in Misc Case No.33/2010 arising out of Title Suit No.3/ 2004 by the learned Munsiff No.2, Cachar, Silchar thereby rejecting the petition No.479/2011 filed by the petitioners praying for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 3. The petitioners, as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.3/2004 with the following prayers : a) a decree declaring the plaintiffs’ right, title, interest over the prop erties described in schedule-2 below within the building over schedule-1 below ; b) a decree for cancellation/delivering up of the deeds described in Schedule- 3 below and for forwarding a copy of such decree to the concerned Registration O ffice for noting the fact of such cancellation in the concerned Book-Volume ; c) permanent/temporary injunction against the defendant and/or any one claiming through or under him restraining them from changing the nature and feature of th e schedule-2 properties and/or inducting any third party over such properties i n any manner and/or creating any charge/encumbrance in any manner over the such properties ; d) any other relief or reliefs ; e) Cost of the suit. 4. The suit property more or less described in Schedule-1,2 and 3 of the plaint. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and su bmitted their written statement in the suit. In the meantime, when the suit was setting up for hearing, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint. By the aforesaid ap plication, the plaintiff/petitioner had prayed for impleading three daughters of the defendant No.1 in the suit and for rectification of the typographical erro r that crept up in the first line of Schedule -3 of the plaint wherein figure ’2 833’ has been wrongly quoted instead of figure ’ 2833’. The plaintiff-petitioner further prayed for allowing to amend paragraph 11(A),to the effect that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.1 in gross violation of the agreement No.2339 dated 4.8.99, illegally manufactured said illegal sale deeds being Nos 528,529 and 530 in favour of Smti.Rinku Paul in respect of non-existence space m easuring 282 Sq.feet (approx) in the non-existence 2nd. Floor and non-existence space measuring 3940.32 Sq.feet (approx) in the non-existence 3rsd Floor and non -existence space measuring 3940-.32 Sq.feet (approx) in the non-existence 4th fl oor respectively situated over Schedule-1 land of the plaintiff in violation of the provision of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff-petit ioner also prayed for insertion by way of amendment by declaring the sale deed Nos 528, 529 and 530 executed on 5.7.08 and registered on 9.7.08 in the office o f the Sub-Registrar, Silchar and the sale deed No.3685 executed on 28.3.07 and registered on 29.8.07 to be adjudged as void, illegal and fraudulent and for c ancellation of those deeds. 5. At the time of hearing, Mr BR Dey, learned senior counsel in his us ual fairness, has submitted that the prayer made in Schedule-1 of the amendment petition is not necessary to be attended to inasmuch as, the persons sought to be impleaded are the daughters of defendant No.1 and during the life time of the defendant No.1, they do not have their right, title and interest over the suit property and they can claim the same only after expiry of the defendant No.1 and in such a situation, the provision of Order 22 Rule 3/4 CPC would be operative . 6. As regards, the prayer made in Schedule-2 of the amendment petition, I find that the prayer made for rectification of the figure’ 2883’ that appearing in the first line in Schedule-3 of the plaint is apparently a typographical err or. Accordingly, the aforesaid amendment stands allowed. In the first line of th e Schedule-3 of the plaint, the figure ’2833’ should be replaced by figure’ 283 3’. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In so far the prayer for amendment in respect of subsequent event plead ed by the petitioner alleging selling of certain space of the Schedule land in f avour of one Smti.Rinku Paul, wife of Shyamal Paul is concerned, such subsequent event during the pendency of the suit would be hit by the provision of section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. It is made clear that if in the meantime , it is proved that the suit property had been effected by any transfer and/or assignm ent or otherwise, such transferee would be bound by a decree passed in the suit in terms of the principles of law laid down under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the event of passing any decree in the suit, the subsequent tr ansferee would also be bound by such decree like that of the original defendant. 8. With the above directions and observations , this revision petition is f inally disposed of. It is further directed that the learned trial court will pro ceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible and already seven years have lap sed in between from the date of filing of the suit.