JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J – Aggrieved of order dated 01.10.2010 passed in Title Suit No. 10 of 2004 by which the application filed by defendant No. 3 for his reexamination has been declined, he has approached this Court. 2. By an order dated 19.01.2011 operation of the impugned order dated 01.10.2010 passed in Title Suit No. 10 of 2004 was stayed by this Court. 3. Title Suit No. 10 of 2004 was instituted for a decree of declaration of joint right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 7 over schedule "B" properties and for a direction to defendant No. 1 to transfer schedule "B" lands in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed that his father purchased 15 katha 11 dhur land in the year 1986 from Uma Rani Basistha through a registered sale deed in the name of Bishun Prasad Saha, however, the property remained in joint possession of the plaintiff''s family, and some construction upto plinth level was made on the suit property. In the mean time, defendant No. 3 sold 1254 sq.ft. of Basuri land out of the aforesaid land purchased by the plaintiff''s father on 17.06.1986. This is schedule "B" property. In the pending suit two amendment applications were filed which were allowed. The sale deeds dated 13.07.1988 and 19.03.1997 were marked during the trial. Thereafter, an application for amendment was filed by the plaintiff by which the plaintiff intended to delete the date of sale deed from the plaint for inserting the date as 19.07.1998 and to plead that sale deed dated 13.07.1988 executed by Bishun Prasad Saha was forged, fabricated and void abinitio. An application was filed by defendant No. 3 for examining himself during the trial. 4. There is no dispute that when the suit was posted for arguments, application for amendment dated 16.08.2010 filed by defendant No. 1 was allowed. Due to amendment in the written statement by virtue of order dated 16.08.2010, the defendant No. 3 who is the full brother of the plaintiff intended to reexamine himself. Impugned order dated 01.10.2010 also records that the defendant No. 3 prayed for his re-examination in the light of the amendment which was allowed by the court and the sale deeds were marked as exhibits. Impugned order dated 01.10.2010 also records that the defendant No. 3 prayed for his re-examination in the light of the amendment which was allowed by the court and the sale deeds were marked as exhibits. However, on the ground that this application was belated and there is an order of the High Court to dispose of the suit by August, 2010, the said application was dismissed. Apparently by order dated 01.10.2010, the application filed by defendant No. 3 has been illegally declined. Once amendment at the instance of defendant No. 1 was allowed, the application by the defendant No. 3 to reexamine himself in the light of order, dated 16.08.2010 could not have been declined. Moreover, the said application has been dismissed adverting to merits of the case, which the trial Judge could not have done. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussions, impugned order dated 01.10.2010 is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. The defendant No. 3 shall be permitted to reexamine himself on 02.02.2018 and the plaintiff and other parties shall be permitted to cross-examine him, however, only to the extent amendment at the instance of defendant No. 1 vide order dated 16.08.2010 was allowed.