Calling in question the legal pregnability of the order dated 30.05.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 5th Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 118 of 2006, the plaintiff/petitioner has sought for the amendment of the plaint on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction and failed to consider that to resolve the real controversy in the suit it was necessary. Learned Trial Court also lost sight of the fact that in the original plaint he had taken the leave under Order II Rule 2 of the C.P.C. The main grievance is such without adhering to the factual aspects followed by legal principles the learned Trial Court rejected the amendment only on the ground of limitation. According to him, the principal/opposite party (since deceased) at the time of filing written statement admitted that there was an agreement between the principal-defendant/opposite party and the present plaintiff/petitioner to the effect that the principal-defendant/opposite party would execute the sale deed in his favour. Therefore, by way of proposed amendment he is not trying to insert any new cause of action. In his plaint also he has ca