Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Plaintiff is the petitioner. He has moved this Court in revision against an order dated 21-3-55 of Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Arrah, refusing the application of the plaintiff, purported to have been made under order 18, rule 3, C. P. C., for permission to reserve his right to adduce evidence by way of answer to the evidence produced by defendant 2.

2. The plaintiff on the basis of a contract for sale, alleged to have been executed by defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff on 1-3-52, brought a suit for specific performance of contract under Sec.27 of the Specific Relief Act on 2-6-52, On 7-7-52 the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint, by which he wanted a new para 6(a) to be added, and, defendant No. 2 to be added as a party to the suit, on the allegation that subsequently the plaintiff had learnt that defendant 2 was a subsequent purchaser with notice of the prior contract, and he was not a transferee in good faith.

This application was allowed, with the result that defendant 2 was added as a party to the suit, and a new para 6(a) was added to the plaint. Defendant 2 filled her written statement thereafter on 12-9-52, in w