JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mrs. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The challenge in this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is the order dated 07.10.2015 passed by the learned Munsiff, North Salmara, Abhayapuri in T.S. No. 72/2006, by which the payer for amendment of the plaint was partly allowed. 3. The respondent herein had instituted T.S. No. 3/1994 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon. However, after the court of Munsiff, North Salmara, Abhayapuri was established, the said case was transfer the said learned court and the suit was re-numbered as T.S. No. 72/2006. 4. At the stage of argument, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC praying for amendment of the schedule of the plaint by projecting that during the pendency of the suit, the re-settlement operation had taken place and the changes in the land revenue record necessitated the reflection of the correct status of land in the plaint. The said petition was numbered as Petition No. 1291 dated 29.05.2015. The petitioner herein had objected to the said amendment and the learned Munsiff, North Salmara, Abhayapuri by passing the impugned order, partly allowed the amendment by directing the bench assistant to insert the new Patta No. 88 and Dag No. 58 in all the schedules i.e. Schedule-A, Schedule-B and Schedule-C of the plaint as “Now Patta No. 88 and Dag No. 58.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the respondent in the plaint is based on false premises and had referred to various discrepancies appearing in the plaint. However, as this Court is only examining the validity of the impugned order, this Court is disinclined to visit the facts as stated in the plaint. It is further submitted that by amending the plaint at the stage of argument, the learned court below had acted illegally by allowing the amendment without considering the bar for amendment as provided in the proviso appended to Rule 17 of Order VI, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that despite to due diligence the party could not raise the matter before commencement of trial. It is submitted that the re-settlement operation had taken place as back as in the year, 2010 and therefore, the respondent had not shown any cause as to why the matter could not be brought to the notice of the court before trial had begun. It is submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable because the learned court below has not recorded satisfaction as required under the proviso appended to Rule 17 of Order VI of the CPC. 6. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in view of the changed status of land in the re-settlement operation by the land revenue staff, the respondent/plaintiff had merely prayed before the learned trial court to insert the new Schedule-A (1), Schedule-B (1) and Schedule-C (1) to stand alongside the earlier schedules, being Schedule-A, B and C. He submits that it was the duty of the plaintiff to refer to the correct survey numbers of the suit land as required under Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC. Moreover, by incorporating the current schedule, the respondent/plaintiff has not even made a prayer to permit him to give fresh evidence. It is submitted that the plaintiff intends to rely on the correct schedule for the purpose of arguing the suit. His submission is that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the amendment of the schedule by incorporating the new Dag, is original prayer before the learned trial court to include three new schedules in addition to the earlier schedules can also be ordered so that the petitioner herein does not suffer any prejudice. 7. On consideration the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that in allowing the amendment, the learned court below had done so by invoking the powers under Section 153 of the CPC. The said power to allow amendment in addition to not in derogation of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. 8. The said power to allow amendment in addition to not in derogation of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. 8. In the present case in hand, it is not the case of the respondent that the respondent/ plaintiff was trying to amend the plaint to filling up any lacuna or to correct any mistake occurred in the plaint, rather, the same was necessitated by change of the survey Numbers i.e. Dag and Patta number in course of the land settlement operation carried down by the land revenue authority. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned order passed by the learned court below. Under the provisions of Section 153 of the CPC, the court is empowered at any time to amend any defect or error in any proceeding for a suit and to allow all necessary amendment for the purpose of determining the suit and it is no longer res-integra that the said power can be invoked at any stage of the proceeding. In this regard, this Court finds support by the case of Jagnabalkya Chakraborty vs. Bidyarthi Chakarborty and Others, (2006) 2 GLR 543. However, in view of the anxiety expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by only incorporating the new Dag Number, they would be discrepancy in Schedule-A of the plaint of which the Schedule-B and C land are integral part thereof. It has been shown that in the Schedule-A of the plaint, the reference of land is 31 Bigha 1 Katha 6 Lessa out of total land of 49 Bigha 0 Katha 14 Lessa, however, in the description of land in Schedule-A (1) which is mentioned in the amendment application, the area of land in the concerned Dag is 26 Bigha 4 Katha 12 Lessa. Therefore, this Court finds that the arguments advanced by the court for both sides is correct that they would be some discrepancy in the description of Schedule-A land, if the impugned order is not interfered with, as it would lead to injustice to the parties. 9. Therefore, this Court finds that the arguments advanced by the court for both sides is correct that they would be some discrepancy in the description of Schedule-A land, if the impugned order is not interfered with, as it would lead to injustice to the parties. 9. Accordingly, to do complete justice between the parties, without finding any fault with the impugned order dated 07.10.2015 passed by the learned Munsiff, North Salmara, Abhayapuri, it is provided that the learned trial court shall permit the Bench Assistant to record the Schedule-A, B and C is contained in the original plaint together with the Schedule-A(1), B(1) and C(1) as mentioned in the amendment application. 10. It is made clear that learned trial court may proceed with the argument for expeditious disposal of the suit as ordered earlier by ordered by it. 11. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. 12. The parties are directed to appear before the learned court below on 19.06.2017 to seek further instruction from the said learned court.