ORDER : The plaintiff in OS.No.84/2002 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Chintamani, has come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 17.3.2012, at Annexure-A. The parties herein are referred to by their ranking in the court below for the sake of convenience. 2. Admittedly, suit in OS.No.84/2002 is filed by the plaintiff against defendants 1 to 4, who are respondents 1 to 4 herein, for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale entered in to between them for sale of suit schedule property, namely land bearing Sy.No.44, measuring to an extent of 1 acre 16 guntas, situated at Hiranyapalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, with boundaries as referred to in the schedule to said suit. It is stated that said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 2.9.2002, subsequently, the plaintiff filed execution petition in EP.No.21/2009 seeking execution of sale deed of suit schedule property in his favour. 3. In the execution petition, the plaintiff had sought that in addition to the land in question being referred to as Sy.No.44 should also be referred to by its new Sy.No.212 for the reason that by the time suit got concluded in a revenue proceedings the old Sy.No.44 was phoded and the extent which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff was given new Sy.No.212. Since the execution court felt that it cannot insert the said new survey number in the schedule in the absence of decree passed by the trial court reflecting the said survey number, the decree should be amended suitably to that extent. 4. It is in this background that an application was filed in the disposed of original suit in OS.No.84/2002. It is stated that the defendants in the said suit did not raise any objection to the application which was filed by the plaintiff. However, the trial court suo motu felt that in a disposed of matter question of amending the schedule to the suit does not arise, therefore, the said application cannot be entertained and accordingly, by order dated 17.3.2012 dismissed the application which was filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, vide Annexure-A. The said order of the trial court is impugned in this writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as respondents are concerned, though they are served they have remained unrepresented before this Court in as much as the decree which was passed in the original suit being compromise decree and the defendants not having raised any objection either in execution proceedings or in the original suit where amendment application was filed in the disposed of matter they have remained absent in this proceedings also. 6. In support of his case learned counsel for the petitioner would try to rely on the Short Note published in (1972) 2 MyLJ at Item No.226 in the matter of Sharifa Bi vs. Rahmat Bi (CRP.No.1525/1971, disposed of on 8.6.1972), wherein it is observed as under: “S.152 – Amendment of plaint after the decree is passed – If permissible. The Court below has rejected the application on the ground that after disposal of the suit and passing of decree, there cannot be any plaint which can be amended. I am surprised that the Munsiff has taken such a curious view. The plaint does not disappear merely because a decree is passed. S.152, CPC does empower the Court to amend the pleadings as well as the decree, even after the decree is passed.” 7. On going through the grounds raised in this writ petition with reference to order impugned as well as the Short Note, referred to supra, it is clearly seen that position of the petitioner in this proceedings is much better than that of the position of parties in the aforesaid judgment, where a mistake which had crept in while describing 2 survey numbers in interchanging their respective places where they are situated was sought to be corrected by the trial court; when the correction of the same was rejected by the trial court, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed such correction in the aforesaid judgment. 8. Admittedly, in the present case the plaintiff has secured specific performance of agreement of sale with reference to a portion of land bearing Sy.No.44 of Hiranyapalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk and it is not that he is seeking change of survey number. 8. Admittedly, in the present case the plaintiff has secured specific performance of agreement of sale with reference to a portion of land bearing Sy.No.44 of Hiranyapalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk and it is not that he is seeking change of survey number. As stated by the plaintiff, subsequent to the decree being passed in OS.No.84/2002 and before sale deed could be executed, in a phodi proceedings a portion which was decreed in his favour was subject matter of change of survey number viz., the said extent being given a new Sy.No.212, said survey number is required to be mentioned in the sale deed to ensure that the title conveyed to him is traceable to the property which is decreed in his favour. Therefore, in this background, this Court would observe that the order impugned is erroneous and the same is required to be interfered with. 9. Accordingly, by setting aside the impugned order dated 17.3.2012 passed in disposed of OS.No.84/2002 on a unnumbered application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, this Court would allow the said application, consequently direct the trial court to issue an amended decree to the plaintiff in said suit to enable him to furnish the same in EP.No.21/2009 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Chintamani and to get appropriate orders for registering the sale deed of said property in his name. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.