ORDER : 1. The circumstances in which this revision petition arises are somewhat unusual. They are, that on 3-7-1951 the plaintiff Nathuram who is the applicant here instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Second Class, Gwalior, for the recovery of Rs. 996/12/- on the basis of a bond from a person whom he described in the plaint as Arjuna s/o Chitariya. The summons in the suit was issued en 3-7-1951 in the name of "Arjuna s/o Chaturiya" that is in the name of the present non-applicant. The process server accompanied by the plaintiff Nathuram went to the res derice of the non-applicant Arjuna s/o Chaturiya and the Summons was tendered to him. The applicant identified Arjuna s/o Chaturiya, that is the non-applicant here, as the defendant. The non-applicant refused to accept the summons. Thereupon it was affixed en his residence and a report to that effect was made to the Court by the process server. The non-applicant Arjuna s/o Chaturiya did not appear in the Court. The suit proceeded 'ex parte' and subsequently a decree was passed against "Arjuna s/o Chaturiya", the defendant named in the plaint. The plaintiff decree-holder then took out execution proceedings of the decree against the non-applicant. 2. "Arjuna son of Chaturiya", the non-applicant, appeared in the execution proceedings and lock the objection that the decree sought to be executed was not against him but against some other person named "Arjuna s/o. Chhitariya. This objection was upheld and the execution proceedings were dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiff applied to the Court which had passed the decree praying that the decree be amended by correcting the name of the judgment-debtor's father. The application was purported to be one under Sections 151 and 152, Civil P.C. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application. He held that as the decree passed in the suit was against the defendant named in the plaint there was no clerical error which could be corrected under Section 152. He also took the view that what the applicant was seeking by the amendment was to obtain a decree against a person who was not a defendant in the suit. He held that as the decree passed in the suit was against the defendant named in the plaint there was no clerical error which could be corrected under Section 152. He also took the view that what the applicant was seeking by the amendment was to obtain a decree against a person who was not a defendant in the suit. He also held that the summons in the suit was not served on the defendant named in the plaint and that this was not a case in which the Court could exercise its powers under Section 151, Civil P.C. The plaintiff has now filed this revision petition against the order of the learned Civil Judge. 3. Mr. Pratap Narain Saxena learned counsel for the applicant urged that there was no doubt an error in the name of the defendant stated in the plaint. But the summons in the suit was issued and served on the real defendant, who is the non-applicant here and that the amendment the plaintiff had prayed for was only an amendment in the defendant's description, that such an error could be corrected under Section 152 and in any case the Court could rectify the mistake under Section 151, Civil P.C. Mr. Swami Saran learned counsel for the non-applicant contended that the amendment in the decree which the applicant was seeking affected the identity of the defendant and was not one concerning merely a description of the defendant and that the Court had no jurisdiction to alter under Section 151, Civil P.C. any judgment once it is signed. 4. In my opinion the order of the learned Civil Judge dismissing the application for the amendment of the decree cannot be upheld. The learned Civil Judge was no doubt right in holding that the applicant could not possibly ask for the correction of the decree under S. 152. Civil P.C. because the decree passed was in fact against the person named as defendant in the plaint. But he was net right in holding without any enquiry that "Arjuna s/o. Chhitariya" the defendant named in the suit was al person different from the present non-applicant and that the present non-applicant was not the real defendant and that the summons in the suit had not been issued and served on the real defendant. The learned Judge also erred in thinking that the plaintiff-applicant was without any remedy. The learned Judge also erred in thinking that the plaintiff-applicant was without any remedy. There are two calculable possibilities in the present case. The first is that "Arjuna s/o. Chhitariya" who was named in the plaint was the real defendant and a person quite distinct from the present non-applicant. Obviously then the decree in the suit was passed against a person against whom no summons had been issued or on whom no summons had been served and who was not given an opportunity to defend the suit. The other possibility is that the present non-applicant whose name is "Arjuna s/o Chaturiya" was through some mistake wrongly described in the plaint, as Arjuna s/o. Chhitariya but he was the real defendant. In that case if as the plaintiff says, the summons in the suit was in fact served en the present non-applicant, then the error in the plaint and the decree in the name of the defendant would be merely one of the defendant's description. It seems to me that in either case the mistake, which has been inadvertently made can be rectified by the Court in the exercise of its inherent powers. If Arjuna s/o. Chhitariya the person named in the plaint is a person quite different from the non-applicant and is the real defendant, then the decree will have to be set aside and the suit will have to be retried after issuing process in the name of 'Arjuna s/o. Chhitariya' and after serving the summons on that person. If on the other hand the present non-applicant was the real person against whom the decree had been asked for and if the summons in the suit as the applicant says was served on him, then for the ends of justice and in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to prevent the non-applicant from taking advantage of the misdescription in his name to evade his liability under the decree, the record must be corrected by substituting the correct name of the defendant's father. 5. The view that in circumstances such as those which exist here, the Court can rectify the mistake in the exercise of its inherent power is amply supported by authorities. In - 'Bharmal Tilokchand v. Bai Vishnabai', AIR 1933 Bom 200 (A) the plaintiff brought a suit for rent against a person described in the plaint as Choitram Bharmal. 5. The view that in circumstances such as those which exist here, the Court can rectify the mistake in the exercise of its inherent power is amply supported by authorities. In - 'Bharmal Tilokchand v. Bai Vishnabai', AIR 1933 Bom 200 (A) the plaintiff brought a suit for rent against a person described in the plaint as Choitram Bharmal. The summons was issued in the name of "Choitram Bharmal", the bailiff accompanied by the Rent Collector went to the residence of "Bharmal Tilokchand" who had actually rented out the premises in the name of his son "Choitram Bharmal" and whom the Rent Collector identified as the defaulting tenant. Bharmal Tilokchand refused service of the summons. Subsequently a decree was passed ex parte against the defendant named in the plaint "Choitram Bharmal". In due course execution was issued against Bharmal Tilokchand who had been identified as "Choitram Bharmal". He was arrested under the decree but ultimately released and in the end the decree-holder applied to the Court to have the decree amended. A long inquiry was held in the course of which it was held that "Bharmal Tilokchand" was the real defendant and was in fact the person against whom the decree had been asked ior and obtained. The amendment was allowed and the Court directed that the name of Bharmal Tilokchand be brought on record as "Bharmal Tilokchand alias Choitram Bharmal". This order of the original Court was challenged in revision in the Bombay High Court. The learned Judges of the Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that the correction was rightly made in the record by that lower Court and that Section 151, Civil P.C. conferred sufficient power on the Court to enable it to do what it actually did in the case. It will be seen that the Bombay case is directly pertinent here. A similar course was adopted in - 'Bhairon Lal v. Harbans Chaudhary', AIR 1935 All 914 (B). That was a case in which the plaintiff had named a wrong person as the defendant and obtained a decree against him. Subsequently he applied for the correction of the name of the defendant and said that he had made an accidental slip in putting a wrong man as defendant. That was a case in which the plaintiff had named a wrong person as the defendant and obtained a decree against him. Subsequently he applied for the correction of the name of the defendant and said that he had made an accidental slip in putting a wrong man as defendant. Kendall, J., held that : "If the plaintiff really made an accidental mistake of this kind there must be a remedy such as that contemplated in Sections 151 to 153. If there was an error that could be corrected by proceedings under Sections 151 to 153, then the proper course of the Court was to send a notice to the other person to be substituted and gave him an opportunity of showing that the error was not merely one that could be cured by summary procedure of this kind. If he could show that the error was not of this nature, then the plaintiff's application would no doubt have to be dismissed. But if he failed to show this, then there would be no reason why the Court should not make the necessary correction under the provisions of Ss. 151 to 153." 6. To the same effect is the decision of the Nagpur High Court in - 'Ahmad Haji v. Dhundi Raj', 1952 Nag LJ (Notes) 96 (C). In that case the plaintiff obtained a decree for arrears of rent against a servant of one Ahmad Haji, describing the servant as owner of a shop styled as "Ahmad Haji". When execution proceedings of the decree were taken out describing the defendant as "Ahmad Haji" shop represented by the servant, Ahmad Haji objected to the execution on the ground that no decree was passed against him, and that the decree-holder had obtained a decree against a wrong person who was shown as owner of the shop. Ahmad Haji admitted that he had taken the premises on rent, that he had received the summons in the case and that the person against whom the decree had been passed was his servant. In these circumstances the Nagpur High Court held that the case was a fit case for reopening in the exercise of its powers under S. 151 and ior allowing addition of the real defendant Ahmad Haji as a party and giving him an opportunity to defend the suit. 7. In these circumstances the Nagpur High Court held that the case was a fit case for reopening in the exercise of its powers under S. 151 and ior allowing addition of the real defendant Ahmad Haji as a party and giving him an opportunity to defend the suit. 7. On the contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant that the judgment, once signed cannot afterwards be altered save as provided by Section 152 or on review, I must notice a decision of the Patna High Court reported in - 'Rameshwar v. Dwarka Prasad', AIR 1925 Pat 36 (D) where while conceding that a Court had no jurisdiction under S. 151, Civil P.C. to do that which is prohibited by Order 20, Rule 3, it was pointed out that if the Court could have granted a prayer for review under Order 47, Rule 1, it made little difference whether the alteration in the judgment and decree was sought by an application under O. 47, R. 1 or by an application under S. 151 of the Code. 8. There can, thus, be no doubt that the mistake which has occurred in the case before me can be corrected by the Court under S. 151, Civil P.C. The nature of the mistake and the order that should be pass-ed for correcting it can only be determined after an inquiry into the question whether "Arjuna s/o Chhitariya" was a person different from the present non-applicant and the real defendant or whether the non-applicant "Arjuna s/o Chhaturiya" was the real defendant and whether the summons in the suit was in fact served on the non-applicant. In the proceedings out of which this revision petition arises the non-applicant has said that he never borrowed any money from the plaintiff-applicant; that "Arjuna s/o Chhitariya" was a different person and that the summons in the suit was not tendered to him that is to the non-applicant but to some different person and was affixed to the residence of some other person. There must, therefore, be an inquiry whether the non-applicant "Arjuna s/o. Chhaturiya" is the same person who borrowed money from the plaintiff-applicant and put his signature or thumb impression on the bond in the suit and whether the summons in the suit was tendered to him for acceptation. There must, therefore, be an inquiry whether the non-applicant "Arjuna s/o. Chhaturiya" is the same person who borrowed money from the plaintiff-applicant and put his signature or thumb impression on the bond in the suit and whether the summons in the suit was tendered to him for acceptation. If after such inquiry it is found that the non-applicant was the proper person against whom the decree had been asked for and the summons was served on him, then the record must be corrected by substituting the correct name of the non-applicant's father. If on the other hand it is found that "Arjuna s/o. Chhitariya" was a person distinct from the present non-applicant and the real defendant in the suit, then the decree must be set aside and the case must be re-opened so as to give to the "Arjuna s/o. Chhitariya" an opportunity to defend the suit after proper service of the summons. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Civil Judge Second Class rejecting the application for amendment of the decree and direct him to hold an inquiry and then pass orders in the light of the above remarks. To this extent this application is allowed. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. Application partly allowed.