JUDGMENT Plaintiff-applicant has directed this revision against the order dated 8.5.2001 passed by Civil 'Judge, Class II, Petlawad, District Jhabua in CS 19-A/96 thereby rejecting the application filed on behalf of the applicant-plaintiff seeking amendments in the plaint. Briefly stated the facts of the case are: That originally the plaintiff applicant has filed a suit against the respondents for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the land in dispute and also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction against the respondents. Learned trial Court, by order dated 19.9.2000, dismissed the application filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of temporary injunction under O.39. Rr 1 and 2, CPC .on the finding that the plaintiff- applicant is not found in possession of the disputed land. In view of the aforesaid finding of the trial Court, applicant-plaintiff has filed an application for amendment of the plaint seeking relief of possession of the suit land and claiming mesne profit with regard to the land in dispute. The said amendment application was opposed on behalf of the respondent-defendants and by the impugned order, the trial Court rejected the application filed on behalf of the applicant seeking amendment in he plaint. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, the plaintiff-applicant has filed this revision. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it emerged that the proposed amendment was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that if such amendment is allowed, then it will be barred by law of limitation and for this purpose, the trial Court has mentioned in its order that in other C.S. 4-A/88 (Champabai, v. Sama) the applicant-plaintiff has made some admissions with regard to the possession of the non-applicants on the disputed land and in view of the aforesaid admission, the amendment, if allowed, will be barred by limitation. In my considered opinion, the trial Court has adopted wrong procedure for considering the application for amendment. The trial Court, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, should have allowed the amendment and on the objection raised on behalf of the defendants with regard to the amendments, ought to have decided the matter, of limitation giving opportunity of leading evidence to both the parties. The trial Court, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, should have allowed the amendment and on the objection raised on behalf of the defendants with regard to the amendments, ought to have decided the matter, of limitation giving opportunity of leading evidence to both the parties. But without extending such opportunity, the trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of some other case, recorded a finding that in view of the admission of the plaintiff-applicant in the alleged suit, the amendment, if allowed, would be barred by limitation and on this count, the impugned order of the trial Court appears to be illegal. In view of the plaint allegation and the amendment sought by the plaintiff, in my considered opinion, the proposed amendment appears to be necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties. The proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit. As such, the proposed amendment deserves to be allowed. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The order impugned of the trial Court is set aside and the plaintiff-applicant's application IA No.5, seeking amendment in the plaint, is allowed. The amendment bf incorporated in the plaint within fourteen days. The defendants may be permitted to apply for consequential amendment, if any, in their written· statement after the amendment is incorporated in the plaint. No order as to the costs.