JUDGMENT Heard on admission. This petition under section 115, CPC is directed against the order· dated 21.1.2001 passed by the learned VIIIth Civil Judge Class II, Bhopal in RCS No. 118-A/98 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC. The petitioner-plaintiff has instituted the above civil suit against the respondents-defendants for declaration and perpetual injunction. It has been alleged that between 12.2.1998 and 14.2.1998, the respondents defendants had taken forcible possession of the suit property and therefore the petitioner-plaintiff sought permission to incorporate the relief of the recovery of the possession thereof by way of amendment in the plaint. The learned Judge rejected the application on the ground that the relief sought to be incorporated by way of amendment is barred by limitation. Shri Qamruddin, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the limitation is not six months as observed by the learned Judge of the trial Court, but it is 12 years. Be that as it may. At this juncture, the petitioner plaintiff appears to be prima facie entitled to get the above facts incorporated in the plaint by way of amendment as according to him he has been dispossessed by the respondents/defendants between 12.2.1998 to 14.2.1998. The matter of limitation shall be considered by the trial Court during the trial. The learned Civil Judge has acted in exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity while rejecting the application for amendment. The petition is, therefore; allowed. Necessary' amendments be incorporated in the plaint. As opportunity for consequential amendment if asked for shall be given to the respondents/defendants The petition stands finally disposed of. This order is subject to such objection as the opposite pm1y may choose to prefer.