JUDGMENT : 1. Pahlad Das, the plaintiff, had brought two suits in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares. Another suit had been brought by Babu Girdhar Das. To all three suits the Collector of Jaunpur and certain other persons were made defendants. By consent of parties the suit which was fully heard out was Suit No. 90 of 1910 in which Babu Girdhar Das was plaintiff. Full judgment was recorded in that case by the Subordinate Judge of Benares, and in Suit. No. 92 of 1910 he recorded the only order “For the reasons given in my judgment in Suit No. 90 of 1910 the suit is dismissed with costs. The other issues need not be tried.” I am told by the learned Vakil for the applicant that the concluding; words of this judgment refer to additional issues which were raised in this case only and not in the other two cases. This decision was passed on the 23rd of September, 1911. A decree was prepared and apparently no objection was taken to the minutes of the decree when they were drawn up as required by O. XX, R. 21 of the CPC.[ RULES FRAMED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, N.W.P., UNDER Section 122 of the CPC, ACT V OF 1908 ORDER XX, RULE 21. (1) Every decree and order as defined in S. 2, other than a decree or order of a Court of Small Causes or of a Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, shall be drawn up in the Court vernacular. As soon as such decree or order has been drawn up, and before it is signed, the munsarim shall cause a notice to be posted on the notice board stating that the decree or order has been drawn up, and that any party or the Pleader of any party may, within six working days from the date of such notice, peruse the draft decree or order and may sign it, or may file with the munsarim an objection to it on the ground that there is in the judgment a verbal error or some accidental defect not affecting a material pure of the case, or that such decree or order is at variance with the judgment or contains some clerical or arithmetical error. Such objection shall state clearly what is the error, defect, or variance alleged, and shall be signed and dated by the person making it. (2) If any such objection be filed on or before the date specified in the notice, the munsarim shall enter the case in the earliest weekly list practicable, and shall, on the date fixed, put up the objection together with the record before the Judge who pronounced the judgment, or, if such Judge has ceased to be the Judge of the Court, before the Judge then presiding. (3) If no objection has been filed on or before the date specified in the notice, or if an objection has been filed and disallowed, the munsarim shall date the decree as of the day on which the judgment was pronounced and shall lay it before the Judge for signature in accordance with the provisions of Rr. 7 and 8. (4) If an objection has been duly filed and has been allowed, the correction or alteration directed by the Judge shall be made. Every such correction or alteration in the judgment shall be made by the Judge in his own hand-writing. A decree amended in accordance with the correction or alteration directed by the Judge shall be drawn up and the munsarim shall date the decree as of the day on which the judgment was pronounced and shall lay it before the Judge for signature in accordance with the provisions of Rr. 7 and 8. (5) When the Judge signs the decree he shall make an autograph note stating the date on which the decree was signed.] It is contended that into the decree thus prepared an error got in, namely, that in the schedule of costs drawn up two sets of Pleader's fees were charged, when only one set should have been charged if the rules prescribed by this Court for the guidance of subordinate Civil Courts in this matter had been followed. The special rules referred to by the learned Yakil for the applicant are Er. 30 and 31 in Chap. The special rules referred to by the learned Yakil for the applicant are Er. 30 and 31 in Chap. XXI of the General Rules (Civil) of 1911.[ GENERAL RULES (CIVIL) OF 1911 FOR CIVIL COURTS SUBORDINATE TO THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE N.W.P. Chapter XXI, R. 30—If several defendants, who have a joint or common interest, succeed upon a joint defence, or upon separate defences substantially the same, not more than one fee shall be allowed, unless the Courts that otherwise order for a reason which shall be recorded in the judgment. If only one fee be allowed, the Court shall direct to which of the defendants it shall be paid, or shall apportion it among the several defendants in such manner as the Court shall think fit. Rule 31—If several defendants, who have separate interests, set up separate or distinct defences and succeed thereon, a fee for one legal practitioner for each of the defendants who shall appear by a separate legal practitioner may be allowed in respect of his separate interest such fee, if allowed shall be calculated with reference to the value of the separate interest of such defendant in the manner hereinbefore prescribed.] It was not until the 17th of August, 1912, or nearly a year after that the applicant discovered what he considered to be an error and went to the Subordinate Judge of Benares and asked him to correct the decree and amend it by substituting only one set of Pleader's fees instead of two sets. The Subordinate Judge refused to amend the decree. The reasons he gives are that the record before him did not show whether the defendants in Suit No. 92 had succeeded on a joint defence or on separate defences. 2. He held that it was the duty of the applicant to send for the record or to file a copy of the judgment in the case, namely, the judgment in Suit No. 90. He was not satisfied from what was before him that there was anything wrong about the decree and he refused the application to amend. It is contended before me that there is a manifest error in the decree. The defendants had on a joint and common defence succeeded and were entitled in law as provided in the judgment, only to one set of costs. It is contended before me that there is a manifest error in the decree. The defendants had on a joint and common defence succeeded and were entitled in law as provided in the judgment, only to one set of costs. This being so, the lower Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in refusing to amend the decree so as to bring it in accordance with the judgment. In support of his contention the learned Vakil referred me to the case of Baijnath Prosad Singh v. Sham Sunder Kuer , (1914) 22 I.C. 402 : 41 Cal. 637, also the case of Sankuratri Timmayya v. Sri Rajah Uppalapati Venkata-vijaya Gopalaraj Bahadur Zemindar Garu , 24 I.C. 878., which is to be found in Indian Cases, Volume 24, page 878. In the latter case the error put forward for correction was a patent arithmetical error in the calculation of Vakil's fees. The Calcutta case is more on all fours with the case before me, and there is no doubt that the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court did act in revision and did calculate the fees on a different scale from that which the Court below had given. I was also referred to the case of Sheo Balak Pathak v. Sukhdei, (1914) A.I.R. 1914 All. 61 : 23 I.C. 344., in which the orders given were that a clerical error should be amended throughout the record beginning with the plaint down to the decree. Apparently the error had run through the whole case. So far as I know O. XX, R. 21, is not to be found in the rules made under the Code of Civil Procedure either by the. Calcutta or the Madras High Court. It may be so but it has not been pointed out to me. It is a rule which is now part of the procedure enjoined by law. So far as the subordinate Courts are concerned O. XX, R. 21, gives a special and particular mode of procedure when a decree has been drawn up by which the accuracy of the decree may, as far as possible, be ensured. As I have already pointed out, the Pleader connected with the case did not follow the rules there laid down, but has now come in very nearly a year after he got the decree and asks that decree may be amended. As I have already pointed out, the Pleader connected with the case did not follow the rules there laid down, but has now come in very nearly a year after he got the decree and asks that decree may be amended. I am not in favour of exercising the powers of revision even if I have them in this direction. I am also very doubtful whether the present error can properly be considered either as a clerical or an arithmetical mistake. I decline to grant the application and I dismiss it. I make no order as to costs.