Judgment R. BALIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 1-2-1994 by which the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar has rejected the plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with a part of the suit premises which was alleged to be in possession of plaintiff and for possession of the remaining part of the suit premises. The amendment incorporating the averments that during the pendency of the suit defendant has taken possession of that part of the suit premises also which was at the time of filing of the suit in possession of the plaintiff and in respect of which a decree for permanent injunction was sought and on that basis consequential relief for getting possession of the whole of the suit premises was also sought by amending the relief. ( 3 ) THE defendant in his written statement has claimed that he was in possession of the suit premises at the time of filing of the suit. He on that basis contested the amendment application that when defendant has taken this plea at the earliest, plaintiff ought to have amended his plaint at that time. He denied the fact of having taken possession of any part of the suit premises during the pendency of the suit. He also pleaded that he has become owner of the premises by adverse possession because he claims to be in possession since 1976 and therefore, his contention was that if the amendment is allowed, he will loose his vested rights. ( 4 ) HAVING carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the trial Court committed material irregularity and illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction by going into the merits of the rival claims of the parties regarding possession of the suit premises while deciding the question whether the amendment sought ought to be allowed or not. ( 5 ) THE fact whether plaintiff is able to prove that the defendant has dispossessed him during the pendendy of the suit or the fact that whether the defendant has able to prove his prior possession is not relevant. What is relevant is whether on the basis of pleadings of the plaintiff whether the amended cause could be said to be within limitation or not. What is relevant is whether on the basis of pleadings of the plaintiff whether the amended cause could be said to be within limitation or not. If viewed from that angle it cannot be said that the suit for recovery of that part of the suit premises from which the plaintiff claims to have been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit was not within limitation. In view of the matter, the trial Court in my opinion, clearly committed error in rejecting the application for amendment. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 1-2-1994 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar is set aside and the application of the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 for seeking amendment of plaint is allowed. The defendant will be entitled to file his written statement to amended plaint. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.