JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant to quash order dated 4.2.2004 whereby Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Kushalgarh (District Banswara) by which the trial Court allowed application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. by the plaintiff-respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order impugned is not in accordance with law because earlier in the suit land was specified in map as ABEF whereas correct position of the land in question is CDEF, therefore, an application was moved for amendment in the dimensions of the land in question. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration entire facts allowed the said amendment application while imposing cost of Rs. 200/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once dimensions of the land in question were specified at the time of filing the suit, then, obviously it cannot be changed subsequently by way of amending the suit but the trial Court without considering the above aspect of the matter illegally allowed the application, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that by mistake the dimensions were not correctly specified in the suit, therefore, it was felt necessary to correct the actual position of the land and, for that purpose, an application was filed for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., read with Section 151, C.P.C. which was allowed by the trial Court after considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, contention of the petitioner that earlier temporary injunction application was allowed, therefore, now, correction cannot be made is not justified and this writ petition may be dismissed. 5. After considering arguments advanced by both the parties, I have perused the order impugned.In my opinion, the trial Court only permitted the respondent-plaintiff to make correction of the dimensions of the land in question by which the nature of the suit cannot be changed; more so, for final adjudication the trial Court has rightly allowed the application. In view of above, I see no reason to interfere in the order impugned.Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******