Judgment :- 1. Aggrieved by the amended decree made in O.S.No.173 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Chidambaram, this revision is filed. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount which was paid under the agreement of sale and in the plaint she prayed for the recovery of the said amount with a charge over the schedule mentioned property of the plaint and also for damages. The suit was decreed exparte and as per the Judgement the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.1,71,250/-with costs and with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. The decree which followed the judgment also incorporated the same terms. Thereafter, the decree was amended at the instance of the respondent/ plaintiff without notice to the revision petitioner and as per the amended decree a charge was created over the suit property till the payment is made. He therefore submitted that without giving notice regarding the amendment of decree the Court below ought not to have amended the decree. He further submitted that when the respondent/ plaintiff specifically prayed for a charge over the property till the payment is made and while passing the decree the Court below did not grant the relief of creating charge over the property as prayed in the plaint and therefore the Court below deemed to have rejected the relief regarding the charge over the property and therefore the decree cannot be amended later. If at all, the respondent were aggrieved by the non-inclusion of the relief regarding the charge created over the suit property he ought to have filed an appeal and at any rate the Court below ought not to have amended the decree without giving an opportunity to the revision petitioner. 3. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Admittedly, the suit was filed for recovery of the sum paid under the agreement of sale. 3. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Admittedly, the suit was filed for recovery of the sum paid under the agreement of sale. No doubt, in the prayer the respondent/ plaintiff prayed for a charge over the suit property till the payment is made and in the decree and judgment originally passed, no charge has been created over the property. In the amended decree a charge has been created over the property till the recovery of the amount. According to me, under Section 55 (6) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act, the purchaser of a property is entitled to have a charge over the property when the contract has been rescinded by other party and therefore a statutory charge has been created over the consideration in the event of agreement of sale could not be implemented due to the failure of the owner of the property. In this case, the suit was filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for recovery of the amount stating that the sale could not be completed due to the failure on the part of the revision petitioner in not co-operating with the respondent/plaintiff in completing the sale. Therefore, as per the provision of Section 55 (6) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act, a statutory charge has been created over the suit property till the payment is made by the revision petitioner to the respondent/ plaintiff and that has been recognized in the amended decree. Therefore, even assuming that notice was not given to the revision petitioner while amending the decree and even assuming that while passing the Judgement and Decree charge was not created over the suit property, considering the statutory charge created over the property the Court below has rightly amended the decree. 4. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Court below and I do not find any merit in the revision and it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.