JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, M. - This is a revision petition against the judgment and order of the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, dated March 22, 1982, confirming the order of the learned trial court dated October 5, 1981 in a suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by which the learned trial court permitted amendment in the statement of Bala Dutt Goyal taken on oath. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records. 3. The statement of Bala Dutt Goyal was recorded on March 26, 1981 and the application for amendment of the statement was given on April 29, 1981. On the date when the statement and the cross examination was recorded, Sri H.C. Karnatak, S.D.O. was the presiding officer but the amendment has been ordered by his successor before whom the statement and cross-examination was not deposed. The learned commissioner reject the revisions petition on the ground that the correction could be made under Section 151/153 C.P.C. and has relied on certain rulings mentioned by him. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that there is no provision in law for correction of the statement on oath and hence the court had no jurisdiction to order such amendment. He argued that the error in the statement is not a defect or error in proceedings which is the scope of Section 153 C.P.C. and he further argued that a subsequent presiding officer having no knowledge of the statement given and recorded was not in a position to find what was the error and the correction wanted, The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that recording of statement is also part f the proceedings and an error in recording the statement can be corrected under Section 151/153 C.P.C. He further argued that the order was an interlocutory one and no revision would lie against it. 5. In spite of opportunity, no party has cited any case law before me. The questions that arise are whether the court had jurisdiction to order correction/amendment in the statement already recorded on oath and whether the court give a finding that the earlier presiding officer has recorded the statement incorrectly without taking evidence on the point and merely on the affidavit of the person whose statement on oath is disputed. The questions that arise are whether the court had jurisdiction to order correction/amendment in the statement already recorded on oath and whether the court give a finding that the earlier presiding officer has recorded the statement incorrectly without taking evidence on the point and merely on the affidavit of the person whose statement on oath is disputed. As regards the question of the impugned order being only an interlocutory order, since the amendment in the statement amounts to reversing the meaning of the statement, this order must be deemed, if allowed to stand to occasion failure of justice and, therefore, a revision must be held to lie against such an order. 6. I have not been shown any provision under which a recorded statement could be amended later on. There is not even a finding that the actual statement on the date of deposition was different and there was a mistake in recording the same. I have no doubt in my mind that a subsequent presiding officer has no means to give a finding that the statement on oath by his predecessor was incorrectly recorded unless a definite proof on the point like tape recorded version or equally reliable audience's evidence is available and is acceptable. I find from the order of the learned trial court dated October 5, 1981 that his order is almost arbitrary, finding an omission and mistake of the court on April 4, 1981 without considering any evidence at all on the point. A mere affidavit of the person is no sufficient evidence for discarding a recorded statement on oath. The statement recorded on oath has to be considered as evidence and not proceedings. The process of recording statement on oath is a part of proceedings but the recorded statement is not proceedings but becomes evidence which cannot be tampered with even by the presiding officer. There is no question of finding errors in parts of such recorded statement for the purpose of correcting errors in proceedings under Section 153, C.P.C. Consideration of possible errors in statement of a person is permissible only while analysing evidence and deciding the case. As regards the rulings mentioned by the courts below, only three give complete reference and these also do not relate to the question before us i.e. amendment in a statement of witness recorded on oath. As regards the rulings mentioned by the courts below, only three give complete reference and these also do not relate to the question before us i.e. amendment in a statement of witness recorded on oath. In AIR 1955 Calcutta 526, the case was dismissed in default by mistake of the court which rectified it under Section 151, C.P.C. In A.I.R. 1967 Patna 360, by mistake of the court, one of the plaintiffs was not included in the decree and the defendant-appellant did not include that plaintiff as respondent, this mistake was held rectifiable under Section 153, C.P.C. and that appellant should not be made to suffer for the mistake of the court. The ruling reported in A.I.R. 1975 Patna 223, does not relate to the point at all. The learned Commissioner has tried to justify the correction on the basis of other evidence which is out side the scope of Section 153, C.P.C. It is a different matter if the court while considering the statement on oath at the time of giving judgment, did not rely on any portion of it and drew different conclusions based on its consideration and reasons but the statement itself as evidence would remain as such and its sanctity as statement on oath would not be violated by the court itself. 7. The learned trial court without having jurisdiction to make correction/amendment in the statement of the witness already recorded on oath, ordered such correction on October 5, 1981 which was clearly exercising jurisdiction not vested in it and the learned Commissioner by not interfering with such order failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed, the orders of he learned courts below dated March 22, 1982 and October 5, 1981 are hereby set aside and the application of Bala Dutt Goyal dated April 29, 1981 stands rejected. The records of the courts below be returned for further proceedings.