Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. - (1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dt. 06.11.2012 by which the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 11 CPC seeking change in the plaint as regards the measurement of the land in question, has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the suit the petitioner had stated that the respondent No. 1 had encroached upon the land of the petitioner admeasuring 200 Sq.Yds. but it later on came to the knowledge of the petitioner that on actual measurement of the land in question, the area came to be 152.06 Sq.Yds. only and, therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner moved the said application seeking change in the suit as regards the measurement only of the land in question so that the actual and specific fact may come on record and the learned trial Court may be able to come to a definite conclusion. Counsel further submits that the petitioner, being a lady and aged of 76 years, could not take necessary action in this regard and could not submit application within time.
(2.) COUNSEL for the respondent No. 2 -Nagar Parishad, on the other hand, submits that the application was moved by the petitioner after abnormal delay and, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record including the order impugned passed by the learned trial Court this Court is satisfied with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and this Court is of the view that if correct measurement is being placed on record, then no prejudice would be caused to the other side rather the area encroached upon comes smaller than what had initially been claimed in the plaint by the petitioner. Though there is certainly some delay in filing the application by the petitioner, however, if the real controversy and correct facts are brought on record, then there is no harm in taking the same on record. Consequently, this writ petition stands allowed. The order impugned passed by the learned trial Court dt. 06/11/2012 is set aside with direction to the learned trial Court to allow necessary change in the plaint as regards the measurement of the land in question subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/ - by the petitioner to the respondent on or before the next date of hearing in the suit. Further, since the matter relates to the year 1990, therefore, in order to safeguard the interests of the parties, the learned trial Court is expected to decide the suit itself within a given time frame of six months.;