JUDGMENT Bind Basini Prasad, J. - This judgment will govern civil Revision No. 3 of 1945. The material facts are as follows: Triloki Nath and others made an application under S. 12, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934, read with S. 9, U.P. Debt Redemption Act, for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 1540-1925, for a sum of Rs. 2,999-15-0. The mortgaged property consisted of 55 bighas 17 biswas 6 dhurs of a certain agricultural plot. The mortgagors' contention was that the entire mortgage money was paid up from the usufruct of the property and that they were entitled to redeem the property without paying anything. Dalsingar, mortgagee, resisted the claim on a number of grounds and inter alia he pleaded that the profits were not sufficient to pay off the principal sum of the mortgage money. 2. On 11-9-1942, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree directing accounts to be taken in accordance with S. 9, U.P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940, and it mentioned in its judgment that the correct mode of accounting was as laid down by it in its judgment in another Suit No. 775 of 1941. Evidently that was a method to determine profits on the basis of the circle rate of the mortgaged land. The Commissioner submitted his report on 5-11-1942, and adopted the circle rate method. He arrived at the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 249-9-9 only was due to the mortgagee for the mortgage in dispute. There was an objection to the Commissioner's report and the learned munsif after considering the objection maintained the Commissioner's report. In the result he decreed the claim for redemption on, 8-2-1943, on payment of Rs. 249-9-9. Against that decree there was an appeal to the district Judge and it came up for hearing before Mr. Maheshwari Dayal, Civil Judge. By the judgment dated 29-11-1943, he dismissed the appeal with costs. Nine days later the mortgagee made an application dated 8-12-1943, purporting to be under Ss. 151 and 152, Civil P.C. The allegations therein were that there have been two mistakes in the judgment of the first appellate Court, namely, that, although the Court had directed that the profits of land should be calculated at the rate of Rs. Nine days later the mortgagee made an application dated 8-12-1943, purporting to be under Ss. 151 and 152, Civil P.C. The allegations therein were that there have been two mistakes in the judgment of the first appellate Court, namely, that, although the Court had directed that the profits of land should be calculated at the rate of Rs. 14 per bigha per annum and those of the trees at the rate of 8 annas per tree per annum, the same was not kept in view at the time of the judgment. It was pointed out that if the profits were calculated on that basis then, instead of Rs. 249-9-9 a sum of Rs. 1862-2-0 would be found due under the mortage in dispute. It is necessary to note here that the application did not purport to be one for review of judgment. In fact no court-fee as required by the law for applications of review was paid on this application. This application came up for hearing before Mr. Maheshwari Dayal on 26-2-1944 and he began his order with the following sentence : This is an application for review of my judgment in this appeal given on 29-11-1943 on the ground that there is a mistake therein which is apparent on the face of the record. 3. He remarked in his judgment that it was his practice never to allow in proceedings under S. 12 or S. 33, Agriculturists' Relief Act profits at more than Rs. 15 per bigha per annum and that he never intended to award a higher rate in the appeal decided by him on 29-11-43. Finding that the trial Court in the suit had allowed profits at a rate which worked out at more than Rs. 15 per bigha per annum, he modified his previous order so as to reduce the profits of the mortgaged land to Rs. 15 per bigha per annum. 4. The mortgagor makes an application in revision against the order dated 26-2-1944, and assails it on the ground that the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to modify his previous order under the provisions of Ss. 151 and 152, Civil P.C. That is Revision No. 333 of 1944. 15 per bigha per annum. 4. The mortgagor makes an application in revision against the order dated 26-2-1944, and assails it on the ground that the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to modify his previous order under the provisions of Ss. 151 and 152, Civil P.C. That is Revision No. 333 of 1944. The mortgagee also makes an application in revision against the judgment dated 29-11-1943, and contends in substance that really the basis of calculation of the profits should be the occupation rent and not the circle rate system adopted in the trial Court. 5. We take up first Revision NO. 333 of 1944. The first error in the order dated 26-2-1944, passed by the learned Civil Judge is that he was under the impression that there was an application for review before him. No such application was made before him by the mortgagee. As has already been pointed out above, the necessary court-fee was not deposited by him. It is doubtful whether or not an application for review was maintainable in the circumstances of the case, but it is, unnecessary for us to go into that point when the mortgagee himself did not purport to make any application for review. 6. The second point is that S. 152, Civil P.C. is not applicable. The provisions of that section are attracted only when there is any clerical or arithmetical mistake in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. That section is inapplicable where there is any error in the principle applied in the judgment. From a perusal of the judgment dated 29-11-1943? delivered by the learned Civil Judge it will be seen that the points made out by the mortgagee in his application dated 8-12-1943, were not urged before him. There is nothing in the judgment dated 29-11-1943, to show that learned counsel for the mortgagee appellant argued before the learned Civil Judge that the profits allowed by the trial Court worked out at more than Rs. 15 per bigha per annum. We express no opinion as to the propriety of the learned Civil Judge adopting a rule of thumb to allow only Rs. 15 per bigha per annum. We express no opinion as to the propriety of the learned Civil Judge adopting a rule of thumb to allow only Rs. 15 per bigha per annum irrespective of the quality of the land but we must point out that when at the time of the hearing of an appeal a point is not urged by a party and subsequently after the judgment it strikes the party that he might have urged a point before the Court which might have prevailed, and then he makes an application to the appellate Court for correction of the judgment under S. 152, Civil P.C., such an application is in, our opinion not maintainable. It is the duty of the parties to lay before the Court all the necessary points in their favour at the time of the hearing of the case and the judgment of a Court cannot be corrected or modified on the ground that any additional argument which was originally not advanced is subsequently urged before it. We are of opinion that the learned Civil Judge was not justified in modifying the judgment dated 29-11.1943, by the order dated 26-2-1944. Civil Revision No. 333 of 1943 should, therefore, be allowed. 7. We pass on now to consider civil Revision No. 3 of 1945 brought by the mortgagee. The point urged on his behalf is that the learned Munsif was not right in appointing a Commissioner to determine the profits of the mortgaged property. The first point to be noted in this connection is that no such plea was taken by the mortgagee before the appellate Court and this point is being urged for the first time in revision. Secondly, it is to be noted that the appointment of the Commissioner in the present case was certainly not illegal. Learned Munsif passed a preliminary decree for redemption and according to the provisions of O. 34, R. 7, Civil P.C. and the form of the preliminary decree for redemption as given in Appendix D to Sch. 1, at Serial NO. 7a, a Commissioner could be appointed to take the accounts of the mortgaged property. We see no force in this contention. 1, at Serial NO. 7a, a Commissioner could be appointed to take the accounts of the mortgaged property. We see no force in this contention. In the result Civil Revision No. 3 of 1945 is dismissed with costs and Civil Revision No. 333 of 1944 is allowed with costs and the order dated 26-2-1944, passed by the learned Civil Judge is set aside.