JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Munsiff No. 1, Jodhpur dated August 9, 1991 by which he has allowed the application of the plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 moved under Order 6 rule 17, C.P.C. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. The plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 has filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and for ejectment of the defendant-petitioner and the defendant-non-petitioners No. 2 and 3. Neither the amounts of rent and interest have been determined under Section 13(3), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 nor issues have been framed so far. An application under Order 6 rule 17, C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff on July 21, 1990 for the amendment of his plaint with the averments that the measurements of the suit property as given in the site plan are no correct, they were given on rough estimate as the adjoining occupant did not permit him to take the correct measurements, correct measurements were taken after he was evicted in the execution of the decree obtained by Devi Singh against him. After taking the reply of the defendant No. 3, and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court allowed the application. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the learned trial court by its impugned order has permitted the plaintiff-non-petitioner to amend his document viz., the site plan, no provision of the Code of Civil Procedure permits amendment of documents, plaintiff's application is mala fide, the amendment has greatly prejudiced his defence, it has changed the nature of the suit and the plaintiff has now made the amended site-plan a part of his plaint. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner duly supported the order under challenge. 5. There is no substance in the revision petition. Admittedly, the dimensions of the suit property have not been given in the plaint. It refers to a plan filed by the plaintiff. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the possession of the adjoining property was obtained from its occupants in execution of the decree obtained by Devi Singh after present suit was filed. It refers to a plan filed by the plaintiff. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the possession of the adjoining property was obtained from its occupants in execution of the decree obtained by Devi Singh after present suit was filed. This supports the plaintiff-non-petitioner's version that he was able to measure the dimensions of the suit property only after the occupant of the adjoining property was evicted and the previous site plan filed gave dimensions on the basis of the rough estimate. Submission of a site plan containing correct measurements of the suit property in place of previous site plan giving measurements on the basis of rough estimate is not an amendment of a document. 6. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner could not point out as to how the application of the plaintiff-non-petitioner was malafide and his defence is prejudiced. Admittedly, the defendant has not filed a site plan of the suit property. He has also not given its measurements in his written-statement. Nothing prevented him to do so. He may do so now to show his bona fides and fairness. 7. Order 7 rule 3, C.P.C. requires that where the subject matter of a suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it. The plaintiff has now made the corrected site-plan a part of the plaint. As a matter of fact, the amendment allowed is in the interest of both the parties. It has vividly and correctly described the suit property. It will eliminate complications or difficulty in the execution of the decree, if passed. 8. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed with costs.Revision dismissed *******