Judgment :- 1. I am afraid that the learned District Judge has erred in reversing the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge; and my reasons will appear presently. 2. There was a suit for partition in which a preliminary decree was passed. The matter was taken up to the High Court and the High Court varied the preliminary decree, so that the preliminary decree became a decree of the High Court. Subsequently, when proceedings for passing a final decree were started and when a commissioner visited the properties, a mistake came to light regarding the description and survey numbers of one item of property. The plaintiff then filed I. A. No. 376 of 1960 before the Subordinate Judge's Court praying for correction of the survey numbers, description etc. of the property. The Subordinate Judge after taking evidence held that the amendment sought was merely a rectification of mistakes in the schedule of properties and not adding any new item of property to the schedule. The counsel of the contesting 1st defendant also agreed before that court that if it was merely a correction of a mistake and not any addition of a new item of property, the amendment might be allowed. The Subordinate Judge accordingly amended the preliminary decree. In pursuance of the amended preliminary decree a final decree was passed; and the 1st defendant appealed against that final decree before the District Court. The District Judge set aside the final decree observing that what was done by the Subordinate Judge was to add two items of properties to the preliminary decree in the place of one of the original items. He also held that the application for amending the preliminary decree should have been filed before the High Court, as it was the preliminary decree passed by the High Court that was. sought to be amended. 3. An application to amend a preliminary decree which has become final cannot be considered to be a proceeding in the final decree proceedings. If the amendment is made prior to the filing of the appeal against the preliminary decree itself, then the proceeding for amendment can be considered to be a proceeding, interlocutory in nature, so that the decision in such interlocutory proceeding may also be questioned in the appeal against the preliminary decree. If the amendment is made prior to the filing of the appeal against the preliminary decree itself, then the proceeding for amendment can be considered to be a proceeding, interlocutory in nature, so that the decision in such interlocutory proceeding may also be questioned in the appeal against the preliminary decree. In a case where the preliminary decree has become final because no appeal was filed against it, the application for amendment is in the nature of an independent proceeding. It cannot be considered as a proceeding, interlocutory in nature, in the final decree proceedings so as to make it liable for variation in an appeal against the final decree. No decision to, the contrary effect is pointed out to me. 4. The position will be clearer if a case like the one before me is scrutinised more closely. In this case the preliminary decree was passed by the High Court and the proper forum for amending that decree was the High Court. If the proceeding for amendment of such a decree were a proceeding in the final decree proceedings, the trial court itself could have amended the decree, because it was the proper court for passing the final decree. The principle that it is the High Court that is to amend the preliminary decree itself indicates that the petition to amend the preliminary decree is not a proceeding in the final decree proceedings. Such a petition, as already stated is in the nature of an independent proceeding; and it has to be stated before the court which ultimately passed the preliminary decree. In this view it is clear that the District Judge could not have interfered with the order in I. A.. No. 376 of 1960 in the appeal against the final decree. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel of the contesting respondent (1st defendant) that the order of amendment passed by the Sub-Court being one without jurisdiction, the parties could have ignored it. I do not think so. At any rate, I do not propose to pronounce any final opinion on that question; because, in the view I have taken that I. A. No. 376 of 1960 was riot a proceeding in the final decree proceedings, the order of the District Judge has to be vacated. 6. Even on merits I do not think the Subordinate Judge was in error. 6. Even on merits I do not think the Subordinate Judge was in error. There cannot be any dispute regarding the property involved in the suit; because, pending suit a commissioner inspected a particular property, which was admitted to be the suit property. In the final decree proceeding also another commissioner inspected the same property; and it was then that the mistake in the survey numbers, extents, etc. was discovered. From these facts it is clear that the suit property is identified; and the only question is whether the description, survey numbers, etc. have to be corrected. Hence it is not an addition of any new item, but is only a rectification of mistake, that was effected by the amendment. 7. The second appeal is consequently allowed, the decision of the learned District Judge is set aside and the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is restored. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs in this Court and in the District Court; but the order regarding costs passed by the learned Subordinate Judge will stand. Allowed.