Judgment 1. On the presentation of the civil revision, learned counsel sought an adjournment on the ground that his colleague has not returned to the High Court after Holi vacation. The court declined the adjournment. 2. The court has examined the record. The issue is that an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 had been denied by the Court of Sub-Judge III, Patna in Title Suit No. 273 of 2000: Sri Naresh Kumar Das & Ors. vs. Mostt. Minta Devi & Ors. 3. The contention in the amendment application was that lis pendens a property had been transferred by gift. The plaintiffs contend that if there has been a transfer of the property during the pendency of the suit it will affect the proceeding and would also affect his case prejudicially. 4. The court below was of the opinion, as is recorded in its order dated 14th August, 2002, that the amendment had been sought belatedly. 5. Nothing is available from the record at what stage an amendment had been sought. But if a transfer had taken place and this is admitted to the defendant by a gift, then it would have been appropriate that the amendment should have been permitted otherwise it would change the nature of the suit itself and the controversy then would be judged on wrong premises. At best, the trial court should have subjected the parties seeking amendment, if belatedly, to cost and permit the amendment so ordered. The order dated 14th August, 2002 denying the amendment is set aside. 6. Thus, the revision is allowed. No order as to costs.