CRP 46/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard Mr. SP Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms Dutt a Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 207/2007 by the p resent application has challenged the order dated 11.11.2009 passed by the learn ed Civil Judge, No. 3 in Misc. (J) Case No. 72/2009 rejecting the application fi led being petition No. 962/2009 under Section 151 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of t he CPC. According to the petitioner, because of the subsequent events he earlier filed an application for amendment of the pleadings in the plaint which was tho ugh allowed vide order dated 13.8.2008, in the amended plaint pursuant to such o rder the description in Schedule B and Schedule C has not been incorporated as p er the amendment allowed and the description of the Schedule B and Schedule C la nd was given as stood prior to the amendment. It appears that the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 11.11.2009 has rejected the said prayer without even considering the averments made in the peti tion that though such amendment to Schedule B and C land was earlier allowed, in the amended plaint filed, the amended schedule not been mentioned inadvertently . The impugned order reveals that the said prayer has been rejected on the groun d that the petitioner now wants to amend the Schedule B and C land without, howe ver, considering the case of the petitioner that amendment to Schedule B and C l and was earlier allowed vide order dated 13.8.2008. That being the position, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned court below for deciding the petition afresh by taking into consideration the averments made as well as the o rder dated 13.8.2008 allowing the amendment. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on the next da te fixed i.e. 31.5.2010. The petition is disposed of.