ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.:–Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned. 2. The petitioners-plaintiffs have challenged the part of the order, dated 22.12.2020, passed by learned Sub Judge-VII, Nalanda, at Biharsharif, in Title Suit No. 80 of 2008, by which the amendment of the plaint sought by the petitioners-plaintiffs has been rejected. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs submits that the respondent no. 1 has sold some of the suit land in favour of six purchasers, who have been added as party-defendants in the suit at the instance of the petitioners-plaintiffs. 4. The suit is of the year 2008 and the purchasers, at the instance of the petitioners-plaintiffs, were made parties in the suit in the year 2011 and 2013. The argument on behalf of the respondents-defendants has, now, closed and the argument on behalf of the petitioners-plaintiffs is going on. At this stage, the petitioners have filed the amendment petition, seeking amendment in the plaint to the extent that “since that suit property was sold during the pendency of he suit, as such, the same is barred by the doctrine enshrined under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882”. The learned Court below while rejecting the amendment application has observed that the Court will consider this legal question of lis pendens at the time of final disposal of the suit. 5. In view of the aforesaid finding of the learned Court below, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order rejecting the amendment sought by the petitioners-plaintiffs. The learned Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order. 6. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. There shall be no order to costs.