JUDGMENT : 1. This application in revision arises out of the following circumstances. The applicant, Sheo Balak Pathak, is the plaintiff decree-holder in a suit, which he brought to recover a two annas share in a certain village. That suit was brought in the following, circumstances. There were two brothers, Satti Pathak and Dharkan Pathak. Each of these persons owned a two-annas share in the village. Dharkan died leaving a widow, Mt. Sukhdei, who got possession of her husband's two-annas share. Then Satti died leaving a widow, Mt. Har Dei. Har Dei took possession of her husband's two-annas share. She then died and was succeeded in her possession by Mt. Chaurasi, the mother of Satti. Mt. Chaurasi then died whereupon Mt. Sukhdei, widow of Dharkan, took possession of Satfci's two-annas share. The plaintiff, thereupon, sued as a reversioner of Satti to recover his two annas share. He distinctly stated in his plaint that he was the owner and entitled to possession of the two-annas share.” He paid court-fee on five times the revenue of the two-annas share. But unfortunately in the relief at the end of the plaint the word “pie” was written in place of “anna,” so that the relief read as if he were suing for a two pie share instead of a two-annas share. This clerical error was clearly a slip. It has led to the subsequent trouble. 2. The suit was can tested. The Court found that the, plaintiff, as the reversioner of Satti was entitled to his estate. But by reason of this slip at the end of the plaint the Court described the property in suit in its judgment as a two-pies share. The decree likewise has the same error. Sheo Balak Pathak, when he obtained the copy of the decree, discovered the mistake. He then applied to the Court below pointing out the error and asking the Court to amend the mistake. That Court has rejected the application on the ground that the decree is not at variance with the judgment, and that the error sought to be amended was brought about by the plaintiff himself and he could not go behind the judgment. It seems to me that Section 152 of the CPC, covers the present case. That Court has rejected the application on the ground that the decree is not at variance with the judgment, and that the error sought to be amended was brought about by the plaintiff himself and he could not go behind the judgment. It seems to me that Section 152 of the CPC, covers the present case. There has been a clerical error in the plaint which was due to an accidental slip, and it has found its way right through the judgment and the decree. The parties were not ignorant of the fact that it was the two-annas share of Satti which was in dispute and in regard to which the suit had been brought. In my opinion Section 152 of the CPC, clearly applies to the case, and the clerical error should be amended throughout the record beginning with the plaint down to the decree. As the error was made by the applicant himself and the present application has not been contested in this Court I pass no order as to Costs.