JUDGMENT : Harish Tandon, J. This revisional application is directed against an order No. 93 dated 5th August 2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div), 3rd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 4457 of 2014 by which an application for amendment of the written statement is partly allowed. 2. The plaintiff/opposite party filed two suits; the first of which relates to a partition of the undivided properties and the second is a declaratory suit where the plaintiff/opposite party claims absolute right, title and interest in respect of the selfsame subject properties. Both the suits are directed to be heard analogously and being tried together. Alleging that the plaintiff has transferred some portion of the properties to the third parties, an application for their addition was filed which was eventually allowed. Simultaneously, the petitioners also filed an application for amendment of the written statement proposing to incorporate not only certain facts but also counter claim challenging the deed of sale executed by the plaintiff/opposite party in favour of the added parties. 3. The Court allowed the portion of the proposed amendment, which relates to elucidation of facts but refused to permit the petitioner to incorporate the counter claim. The reason for such refusal would be evident from the impugned order that the Court held that the relief claimed by way of counter claim is barred by the provisions of Article 58 of the Limitation Act. It is observed that one of the defendants was the attesting witnesses in the deed of sale and, therefore, deriving a knowledge at a subsequent date is incorrect and cannot be believed. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that unless the deed is challenged it would cause impediment in deciding both the suits. As indicated above, interestingly the plaintiff/opposite party after filing a suit for partition have subsequently filed a suit for declaration of an exclusive title in respect of the selfsame subject properties. It is a matter to be decided by the Trial Court when both the suits shall ripe for final disposal. So far as the counter claim is concerned, this Court does not find any necessity of bringing those reliefs in the suit. In the event the preliminary decree is passed and the share of the parties are declared, such transfer would be construed in relation to the shares declared by the court. So far as the counter claim is concerned, this Court does not find any necessity of bringing those reliefs in the suit. In the event the preliminary decree is passed and the share of the parties are declared, such transfer would be construed in relation to the shares declared by the court. Admittedly, there was no impediment either by way of an interdict or injunction standing in the way of transfer share by the co-sharer in respect of undivided property. 5. The transferee pendente lite would be bound by the decree that may be passed against his vendor and cannot claim a bigger right or elevate his status above the status of his vendor. 6. Though the Court should go into the veracity, genuinity and authenticity of the proposed amendment at the time of considering an application for amendment yet the Court can refuse the party to amend the pleading if an independent suit on the proposed amended fact is barred by law of limitation. 7. The Court found that the defendants had the knowledge of the execution and registration of the deed as one of the defendants was attesting witnesses therein and this Court therefore does find any illegality and/or infirmity in the impugned order. 8. With these observations, the revisional applications are disposed of. 9. There shall be no order as to costs.