A.P. LAVANDE, J. Heard Mr. A.M. Sudame, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.S. Sonare, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Smt.S.W.Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. 2. ADMIT. 3. By the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing since the issue involved in the present appeal is short. 4. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the order dt.20.6.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1308 of 2012, by which the Writ Petition preferred against the order dt.3.1.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bhatkuli in Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 2010 has been rejected. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has upheld the order dt.3.1.20l2, by which the learned trial Judge dismissed the application filed by the present appellants under O.VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The appellant is the original plaintiff in the above suit filed against the respondent for specific performance of an agreement, dt.28.5.1998 in respect of the suit property. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application for grant of temporary injunction against the defendant which was partly allowed by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court dismissed the prayer for injunction against the defendant; however, restrained the defendant from creating any third party rights. In this factual background, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking recovery of possession of the property in question. The application was opposed by the defendant and by the order dt.3.1.2012 the learned trial Court dismissed the said application. As stated above, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the defendant challenging the said order. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and for respondent no.2, we are of the considered view that the order dt.3.1.2012 passed by the learned trial Judge and the impugned order dt.20.6.20l2 passed by the learned Single Judge are unsustainable in law. 7. Admittedly, the suit filed by the plaintiff is for specific performance of an agreement to sell the immovable property and the trial Court has recorded a finding that the defendant is in possession of the suit property, though the plaintiff has claimed in the plaint that he is in possession of the suit property. 7. Admittedly, the suit filed by the plaintiff is for specific performance of an agreement to sell the immovable property and the trial Court has recorded a finding that the defendant is in possession of the suit property, though the plaintiff has claimed in the plaint that he is in possession of the suit property. This being the position, the plaintiff was justified in filing the application seeking recovery of possession having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court. 8. No doubt the defendant, at the most, is entitled to raise the claim of limitation after amendment is allowed. Needless to mention that, in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property, the plaintiff seeks transfer of title in the property and also possession of the property agreed to be sold by the defendant. Therefore, in our view, the learned trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge have fallen into error in rejecting the prayer for amendment sought by the appellant/plaintiff. 9. In view of the above, the order dt.3.1.2012 passed by the learned trial Judge and the order dt.20.6.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition are quashed and set aside and the application dt.14.10.2011 (Exh.33) filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment is allowed. The plaintiff to carry out the amendment within a period of four weeks from today. 10. Needless to mention that all the contentions of the defendant/respondent no.2 are kept open and in view of the fact that the amendment is allowed, defendant/respondent no.2 is entitled to file additional Written Statement or consequential amendment in the Written Statement already filed taking all such grounds as may be available to the defendant. The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.