S.N.Hussain, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioners are defendants of Title Suit No. 93 of 1999 which was filed by opposite parties 1-3 for declaration of their title and recovery of possession and also challenging the entries in revisional survey Khatian and for other ancillary reliefs.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 4.12.2004 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Sitamarhi, allowed the plaintiffs petition for amendment of the plaint of their aforementioned suit.

4. The facts of this case. In short, are that the suit was filed in the year 1999 whereafter the defendants-petitioners appeared and filed their written statement on 22.12.2000 after serving a copy of the same on the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Much thereafter on 21.4.2004 the plaintiffs filed a petition (Annexure-1) under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amending the plaint by way of adding a few statements and relief for cancellation of deeds dated 17.9.1952 and 13.3.1955 executed by the predecessor of the plaintiffs.

5. The said amendment petition was rejected by the learned Court below by order dated 8.7.2004 (Annexure-3) on the ground that the defendants in their written statement (Paragraphs-12 and 15) had specifically given the details of the said sale deeds and that although the copy of the said written statement was served upon the learned counsel for the plaintiffs on 22.12.2000, the plaintiffs filed the amendment petition challenging those deeds on 21.4.2004 i.e. much beyond the statutory period of three years from the date of knowledge as per the Limitation Act (Sec. 59).

6. Against the said order of the trial Court the plaintiffs filed Civil Revision No. 1023 of 2004 which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 15.9.2004 (Annexure-4) stating the following circumstances : "In the circumstances learned counsel for the petitioners (plaintiffs) seeks permission to withdraw the civil revision petition to enable the petitioners to file a fresh petition alongwith the limitation petition. Learned counsel for the opposite parties (defendants) has no objection."

7. After the said order of this Court, the plaintiffs filed exactly similar petition (Annexure-5) on 28.10.2004 on the same grounds, but this time alongwith a petition u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay. The defendants filed their rejoinder (Annexure-6) dated 4.11.2004. However, the learned Court below by the impugned order dated 4.12.2004 allowed the amendment petition filed by the plaintiffs.

8. Mr. Anis Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the above mentioned impugned order of the learned Court below on several grounds. His first contention is that where a party acquires a right by bar of limitation and if the same is sought to be taken away by amendment of pleadings, amendment in such circumstances should be refused as even after filing and serving of the copy of the written statement, for three years no steps were taken to file the application for amendment of the plaint challenging the registered deeds, specially when registration is also a notice to every one. In this connection, he relies upon a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 2358.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the copy of the written statement was served upon the plaintiffs counsel on 2212.2000 in which the details of the deeds were given, hence by the amendment petition dated 21.4.2004 a barred relief was being claimed against the deeds after much more than three years of the knowledge about the deeds given to them thorough the copy of the written statement. He further submits that the deeds in question were executed by the ancestor of the plaintiffs themselves and that too by registered documents, hence there is no question of any absence of knowledge or notice to them.

10. M