JUDGMENT Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. 1. AN affidavit-of-service is filed; let the same be kept on record. The postal article addressed to the respondent No. 1 has come back with the postal endorsement 'left'. 2. CONSIDERING the nature of the order impugned before us, we take up the hearing of the appeal itself, although the matter is appearing under the heading 'for orders', by consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, and upon dispensation of all formalities. Since the plaint was rejected on the prayer of the defendant No.2 and the application for amendment of the plaint was contested only by the defendant No.2, service of notice of this appeal on the defendant No.1 is dispensed with. 3. MR. Sourav Banerjee, learned advocate, appears for the respondent No.2 submits that his junior, MR. Achintya Kumar Dutt, learned advocate, has already entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2 by filing a caveat bearing No. 3580 of 2009 (S.R.) on September 15, 2009. MR. Banerjee accepts notice of appeal on behalf of the respondent No.2. 4. THE appeal, therefore, becomes ready as regards service. A suit for specific performance of contract was filed by the plaintiff/ appellant against the defendant No. 1 /respondent No.1 in this appeal. 5. AFTER filing of the suit, the plaintiff came to learn that the defendant No. 1 transferred the suit property in favour of the defendant No.2. 6. THEREFORE, an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff seeking addition of the subsequent transferee. The learned trial judge, by order dated September 23, 2008, allowed the said application for addition of party and the subsequent transferee was added as the defendant No.2 in the suit. 7. THE defendant No.2 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint contending, inter alia, that there has been no cause of action pleaded against him in the plaint. 8. SIMULTANEOUSLY, the plaintiff, also, filed an application for amendment of the plaint alleging that the defendant No. 1 Surreptitiously transferred the property in suit in favour of the defendant No.2 during the subsistence of the contract for sale and that the defendant No.2 had acquired the property in suit with full knowledge of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. The learned trial judge rejected the application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the proposed amendment would cause serious prejudice to the defendant No.2. 9. THE learned trial judge, also, rejected the plaint, by allowing the application filed by the defendant No.2 for rejection of the plaint, holding that there was no cause of action pleaded against the defendant No.2 in the original plaint. 10. IT seems that attention of the learned judge was not drawn to section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Relevant provisions of section 19 of this Specific Relief Act, 1963 run as under: "S. 19. Relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title. - Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, specific performance of a contract may be enforced against - (a) either party thereto; (b) any other person claiming under him by title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract;" We are not concerned, for the present, with the other sub-sections of section 19. 11. SECTION 19 enumerates the persons against whom contract may be specifically enforced. Under sub-section (b) of said section 19 a person claiming under a party to a contract is, also, bound by the contract. The liability of a transferee acquiring title from a party to a contract rests upon the antecedent liability of a party to the contract as the transferee acquired the property subject to the transferor's pre-existing contractual obligations. Thus, a transferee with notice of the prior contract cannot escape the obligation. A suit for specific performance of contract is maintainable against such transferee. According to the said provision a subsequent transferee seeking to defend a suit for specific performance of an earlier contact is, inter alia, required to establish that his acquisition of title, including payment of money, was without the notice of the original contract. 12. A suit for specific performance of contract is maintainable against such transferee. According to the said provision a subsequent transferee seeking to defend a suit for specific performance of an earlier contact is, inter alia, required to establish that his acquisition of title, including payment of money, was without the notice of the original contract. 12. IN the case of Bhup Narain Singh v. Gokhul Chand Mahton and others reported in 61 Indian Appeals 115 the Judicial Committee while construing the provisions of section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, which is in pari materia with section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, observed as under: "the section lays down a general rule that the original contract may be specifically enforced against a subsequent transferee, but allows an exception to that general rule, not to the transferor, but to the transferee, and in their Lordships' opinion, it is clearly for the transferee to establish the circumstances which will allow him to retain the benefit of a transfer which, prima facie, he had no right to get. Further, the subsequent transferee is the person within whose knowledge the facts as to whether he has paid and whether he had notice of the original contract lie, and the provisions of sections 103 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, have a bearing on the question. The plaintiff does not necessarily have knowledge of either matter." At this stage, it is not necessary for us to decide whether the subsequent transferee acquired the property in good faith and without notice of the original contract. This is an issue in the suit. 13. IN the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned trial judge misdirected himself in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint and in rejecting the plaint. 14. WE, therefore, set aside the order impugned; allow the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff and restore the suit to its original file and number by rejecting the application for rejection of the plaint filed by the defendant No.2. The plaintiff is directed to file amended plaint in the trial Court by three weeks from date with a copy of the same to the defendant No.2. 15. AS prayed for by Mr. The plaintiff is directed to file amended plaint in the trial Court by three weeks from date with a copy of the same to the defendant No.2. 15. AS prayed for by Mr. Banerjee, let the written statement be filed by the defendant No.2 by one month from the date of filing of the amended plaint. 16. THE defendant No. 1 is not present before us. Therefore, the learned trial judge is directed to issue summons of the suit on the defendant No.1 afresh as the suit is restored to its original file and number. The plaintiff is directed to put in the requisites along with a copy of the amended plaint for effecting service of summons of the suit on the defendant No. 1, through registered post with acknowledgement due, by three weeks from date. 17. IF the requisites are put in, the learned trial judge is requested to see that the summons of the suit are issued on the defendant No. 1 immediately. 18. THE learned trial judge is requested to make all endeavours to see that the suit is disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a year from this date. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands allowed. 19. IN view of disposal of the appeal, the application for injunction, filed under CAN 9561 of 2009, becomes infructuous and the same is, also, disposed of. 20. THERE will be no order as to costs. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the applicant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites. Appeal allowed.