Judgment :- (1). THIS is a revisional application against an order passed by the learned trial judge rejecting an application for amendment of the plaint filed by the added plaintiffs. The learned trial judge was of the opinion that such prayer for amendment was barred under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (2). THE original owners of the suit premises instituted a suit for eviction of a premises tenant, inter alia, on the grounds of default and reasonable requirement. During the pendency of the suit, they transferred the suit property in favour of the present petitioners. (3). THE present petitioners filed an application for their addition in the suit and for leave to continue the suit against the defendant. Although the application was captioned under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil procedure, but, upon perusal of a copy of the order No. 167 dated August 22, 2001, it appears that the learned judge, in exercise of this power under Rule 10 of Order XXII of the Code, allowed the prayer for addition of the purchasers and permitted them to continue with the suit. (4). THOSE added plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint praying to insert their story of requirement of the suit premises. The learned trial judge, as I have indicated hereinabove, rejected such prayer on the ground that such prayer was barred under Section 6 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882. (5). I cannot comprehend as to how Section 6 of the Transfer of Property act, 1882 could be a bar to insert the present requirement of the added plaintiffs. (6). POSSIBLY, the learned judge was thinking of sub-section (e) of section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which runs as under: "6, What may be transferred.-Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force: (a ). . .(b ). . . (c ). . . (d ). . . (dd ). . . (e) A mere right to sue cannot be transferred (f ). . . (g ). . . (h ). . . (i ). . . " (7). . .(b ). . . (c ). . . (d ). . . (dd ). . . (e) A mere right to sue cannot be transferred (f ). . . (g ). . . (h ). . . (i ). . . " (7). THE law says that a mere right to sue cannot be disannexed from the property of which it is merely an incident, so as to be the subject of a separate contract. The use of the expression mere is significant. The issue is if the subject-matter of transfer is the property with an incidental remedy for its recovery or is a mere right to sue. The expression mere implies that the transferee has acquired no interest in the property other than a mere right to sue. Where the property is transferred with right to recover possession in respect of the property, the transfer is not hit by Section 6 of the Act. What the law prohibits is the transfer of the incidental right to sue without transfer of property. (8). IN this case the transferees have acquired the property from the original owner with right to pursue the remedy of recovery of possession, which is an incidental right. In other words, the subject matter of the transfer was the property with an incidental remedy for its recovery It was not a transfer of mere right to sue. Therefore, the transaction is hot hit by Section 6 (e) of the act. (9). THE learned judge did not consider the application for amendment of plaint on merits, but the learned judge rejected the said application on the ground that the transferees have acquired a mere right to sue. (10). THEREFORE, the order impugned in this revisional application is set aside. The learned trial judge is directed to re-consider the application for amendment of the plaint in proper perspective within a month from the date of communication of this order to him. (11). THE learned trial judge is, also, requested to expedite the hearing of the suit as far as practicable. (12). WITH the aforesaid observations, the revisional application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.