defendant no. 2 of that suit disclosed that the defendant no. 1 of that suit has sold ¼ share by registered sale deed on 20.10.2006. Accordingly, the transposed plaintiffs who were proforma defendants in that suit, were all along aware about the sale deed but they have not taken that plea before the court below and only after commencement of trial, they have come with the said application to take that plea which is hopelessly barred by limitation. He further contended that it is a suit for partition and if the proposed amendment for declaration of deed as void, is incorporated in the prayer, then obviously the nature and character of the suit will be changed. He further submits that before the trial court, other set of plaintiff filed the prayer for amendment in the plaint but that set of plaintiffs has not filed the present revisional application. This revisional application has been filed against the order of rejection by another set of plaintiffs and accordingly, the revisional application is not maintainable. In support of his contention, opposite party has also relied upon a judgment of Apex court reported in (2008) 15 SCC 610 and contended that the remedy for declaration of a deed as void was available to the plaintiff by filing another suit but as the same itself is barred by limitation, so the amendment of the plaint cannot be allowed.
