ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. T.K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. D.R. Choudhury along with Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC, the order dated 04.01.2016 passed in TS (P) 113 of 2012 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, Agartala, West Tripura has been challenged. On oral application of Mr. T.K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners this petition is converted to a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned counsel has raised no objection on that aspect to the matter. 3. After framing of the issues, the plaintiffs all on a sudden filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in respect of the area of land which has been described in the schedule-A of the plaint. According to the plaintiff-respondents, all the documents and the papers in respect of the suit land were lying with the defendants and the plaintiffs was having no documents in respect of the suit land with them. The plaintiff No.1, as stated ‘somehow’ collected the khatian in respect of the suit land after death of Phani Bhushan Paul. It appeared to the plaintiffs from the statement of the defendants that after death of Phani Bhushan Paul, a substantive part of the suit land was sold out to the proforma-defendants. From the calculation described in the written statement, the plaintiff got a fair idea about the area of the land. 4. In para-6, as pointed out by Mr. T.K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the plaintiffs have asserted that the actual area of the suit land is 6½ gandas. In a quick response, Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel has submitted that it has been wrongly typed as 6½ gandas whereas the area of the land should be 6 gandas. In the schedule of amendment it is incorrectly written as 6 gandas. Mr. T.K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised serious objection as to the maintainability of such amendment, which has been allowed by the trial court. According to Mr. In the schedule of amendment it is incorrectly written as 6 gandas. Mr. T.K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised serious objection as to the maintainability of such amendment, which has been allowed by the trial court. According to Mr. Deb, learned counsel, when the trial has commenced, the trial court should not have shown any latitude allowing the plaintiffs to carry out the amendment in terms of the schedule, inasmuch as in the entire petition, no where the plaintiffs have asserted that despite their diligence they could not find out this fact. Moreover there is no assertion that this fact is so much relevant that it would be essentially required for determination of the suit. 5. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has thereafter made a robust endeavour to say that the impugned order dated 04.01.2016 as passed in TS (P) 113 of 2012 should be interfered with as that has been passed in contravention to the proviso below Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC. 6. In reply, Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that in para-3 of the petition, the plaintiffs have stated about their element of diligence and it is apparent on the face of the record that unless the suit land is properly described in the schedule, particularly in a partition suit that would cause immense prejudice to all the parties interested in the joint property. Mr. Deb, learned counsel therefore contended and acceded that the more caution should have been exercised by the plaintiffs, but in the turn of events, they did not get the proper area from the records of right. The moment the records of right came to their hands, they had approached the trial court for making the necessary amendment but in the meanwhile, the trial has commenced. According to Mr. Deb, learned counsel the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is not an absolute bar. The court can exercise its discretion considering the prerequisites as provided in the proviso. In the present case, the trial court has been convinced that the petitioner has made out a case for allowing the amendment inasmuch as this fact is essentially required for determining the suit. 7. The court can exercise its discretion considering the prerequisites as provided in the proviso. In the present case, the trial court has been convinced that the petitioner has made out a case for allowing the amendment inasmuch as this fact is essentially required for determining the suit. 7. Having appreciated the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the way the petition for amendment has been drafted cannot be appreciated. The basic grounds meeting the requirements of proviso below Order 6 Rule 17 ought to have been clearly made out. However, while making this observation, this court is not oblivious that even if there had been no specific averments, but on a reading of the petition it surfaces that the knowledge in respect of the correct measure of the suit land was gathered by the plaintiffs after the commencement of the trial. It goes without saying that unless the measurement of the suit land is properly given, it would definitely cause prejudice to all and none would be benefited the area is not correctly described. 8. In view of that, this court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.01.2016 and accordingly this petition stands allowed. The interim order as passed earlier stands vacated. 9. The respondents shall file the amended plaint by 09.04.2018. It goes without saying that the defendant-respondents shall get a fresh opportunity of filing the additional written statement where they will be at liberty to raise all the objection against the fact or the purpose that has been pleaded by way of incorporation in the original plaint and also to raise the other questions as they would deem fit for their defence. In the result, this petition is dismissed subject to the above observation. No order as to costs.