JUDGMENT ; SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2. 2. Notice upon the opposite party No.1 has been validly served and notice upon the O.P. Nos.3 to 6 have been dispensed with by order dated 13.12.2024 as they are said to be the proforma opposite party. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Madhupur in Misc. Civil Application No.33 of 2023 arising out of Original Suit No.06 of 2009 whereby the petition dated 06.04.2023 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner namely Basant Prasad (sole plaintiff) has filed Original Suit No.06 of 2009 against original sole defendants namely Ram Sharan Yadav for a decree of specific performance and other consequential relief in respect of suit schedule property as Schedule A and praying therein for adjudication of the suit, a decree for declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and direct the defendant to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant fails to execute and register the sale deed in that circumstances sale deed may be registered in favour of the plaintiff through process of the Court. He submits that during the pendency of the said suit the original plaintiff namely Basant Prasad had died and he has been substituted by the petitioner and proforma defendants in the suit as his legal heirs. He submits that during the pendency of the said suit the original plaintiff namely Basant Prasad had died and he has been substituted by the petitioner and proforma defendants in the suit as his legal heirs. He submits that during the pendency of the said suit an intervening application dated 21.12.2018 has been filed by one Ashish Tekrewal under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC vide M.C.A. No.312 of 2018 for his impleadment in the Original Suit No.06 of 2009 as party defendant which was allowed by the learned court by order dated 20.12.2022 and thereafter the intervener who has allowed the defendant has filed the written statement and brought certain new facts including purchase of the suit property in the year 2015 which has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff after filing of the written statement and in view of that the petition has been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in the plaint incorporating para 13 to the effect that defendant No.2 claim over the suit property based on the sale deed executed by his vendor Jagdish Yadav is ab-initio, void, illegal and inoperative and also based on fraudulent transaction of sale which has been rejected by the learned Court. He submits that the transaction has taken place during the pendency of the suit and it was not in the knowledge of the petitioner/plaintiff and in view of that the learned Court has wrongly rejected the petition. He submits in light of Article 59 of the Limitation Act the limitation will start in specific performance case when it has come to the knowledge of department. He further submits that in the said property by way of constructing the house the petitioner/plaintiff is residing therein. On this ground, he submits that the nature of the suit will not change in spite of that the learned Court has rejected the petition. 5. Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 opposes the prayer and submits that there is no relevance of such amendment in the plaint and if that amendment will be allowed the entire nature of the suit will be changed and it is also time barred. He relied in the case of Suresh Prasad versus Sri Suraj Kumar Bhadani reported in (2018) 3 JBCJ 412 . 6. He relied in the case of Suresh Prasad versus Sri Suraj Kumar Bhadani reported in (2018) 3 JBCJ 412 . 6. It is an admitted position that the suit was instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff for a decree of specific performance and other consequential relief in respect of suit schedule property as Schedule A. The suit proceeding has proceeded and in the midst of the proceeding petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC has been filed by the newly added defendant No.2 in the suit which was allowed by the learned Court. It has not been denied that the said transaction of sale deed has taken place during the pendency of the suit property and admittedly petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been filed for impleadment which has been allowed by the learned Court. Once the said property was the subject matter of the suit and during the pendency of that suit the said transaction has taken place to allow the amendment will not change the nature of suit. The learned Court has allowed the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment on the ground that he is the purchaser from the other co-sharers and in this regard reference may be made to the case of Dhanlakshmi and Others versus P. Mohan and Others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 719 wherein at paragraph No.5, it has been held as under :- 5. Section 52 deals with a transfer of property pending suit. In the instant case, the appellants have admittedly purchased the undivided shares of the respondents nos.2,3,4 & 6. It is not in dispute that the first respondent P. Mohan has got an undivided share in the said suit property. Because of the purchase by the appellants of the undivided share in the suit property, the rights of the first respondent herein in the suit or proceeding will not affect his right in the suit property by enforcing a partition. Admittedly, the appellants, having purchased the property from the other co-sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to come on record in order to work out the equity in their favour in the final decree proceedings. In our opinion, the appellants are necessary and proper parties to the suit, which is now pending before the Trial Court. Admittedly, the appellants, having purchased the property from the other co-sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to come on record in order to work out the equity in their favour in the final decree proceedings. In our opinion, the appellants are necessary and proper parties to the suit, which is now pending before the Trial Court. We also make it clear that we are not concerned with the other suit filed by the mortgagee in these proceedings. 7. In view of the above judgment, due to work out the equity as the petitioners are also the co-sharer of the land and having no knowledge of transfer of the said property during the pendency of the suit and further once the written statement has been filed thereafter that has come to the knowledge of the petitioner/plaintiff and to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation this has to be ended in its right perspective the amendment sought by the plaintiff is necessary. So far the limitation is concerned in the aforesaid background that is a mix question of fact and law that can be proved by the parties by way of leading evidence in the trial. 8. In view of the above, the Court finds that the amendment sought in the plaint by the petitioner will not change the nature of the suit, as such the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the learned Court is hereby set aside. 9. The petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC by the petitioner/plaintiff is allowed. 10. The learned Court will allow the petitioner to make out amendment in the plaint with a right to rebuttal by the defendants. 11. This petition is allowed and disposed of.