JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Bimbadhar Debata, opposite party No. 2 (judgment-debtor) in Execution Case No. 32 of 1960 in the Court of the 1st. Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack) took a loan of Rs. 3000/ - on 12-1-1954 from Srimati Soudamini ra, the Petitioner (Decree-holder in Execution Case No. 32 of 1960) for filing a suit for partition against his father Ramakrishna Debata and his brothers. Title Suit No. 12 of 1954 was filed by him on 15-3-1954 for partition and thus there was disruption in the joint family. On 12-8-1953, Ramakrishna Debata took a loan of Rs. 9225/ - from Fagunmani Khuntia, opposite party No. On 2-2-1957, opposite party No. 1 filed Money Suit No. 38 of 1957 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack against Ramakrishna and the Receiver in the Partition Suit for recovery of the loan. On 25-3-1957, Title Suit No. 12 of 1954 was compromised and a preliminary decree for partition Was passed. Under this decree Ramakrishna was allotted some lands exclusively as described in schedule Ka of the preliminary decree. But in these properties he was merely given life interest. Opposite party No. 2 was allotted three annas and four pies interest on all the family properties including the lands allotted to Ramakrishna (see Ext. A). On 23-3-1958, Ramakrishna died and his sons were substituted in Money Suit No. 38 of 1957 on 3-7-1951. On 9-7-1958, the Petitioner filed Money Suit No. 173 of 1958 against opposite party No. 2 for recovery of the loan of Rs. 3000/ - advanced on 12-1-154. On 12-7-1958, she obtained interim order of attachment before judgment against opposite party No. 2 in respect of his three annas and four pies interest in II lots of properties as mentioned in the execution application. On 21st and 22nd July, 1958 the interim order of attachment before judgment was served on opposite party No. 2 in respect of his three annas and four pies interest-(See exts. C, C/l and C/2 series). On 4-10-1958 the order of attachment before judgment was made absolute-(See ext. E). On 20-12.1958, in Money Suit No. 38 of 1957 there was an order of attachment before judgment in respect of the entire family properties. C, C/l and C/2 series). On 4-10-1958 the order of attachment before judgment was made absolute-(See ext. E). On 20-12.1958, in Money Suit No. 38 of 1957 there was an order of attachment before judgment in respect of the entire family properties. On 5-1-1959 Narayan Debata, brother of opposite party No. 2, sold his two annas and eight pies interest in 3 lots (1, 5 and 79) out of 11 lots to opposite party No. 1. On 7-3-1960 opposite party No. 1 obtained a judgment in M.S. No. 38 of 1957. In the judgment it was made clear that opposite party No. 2 and his brothers were liable to the extent of their interest inherited from their father Ramakrishna. Unfortunately this reservation in the judgment was not carried out in the decree which was drawn up on 22-3-1960. On 22-9-1960 the Petitioner obtained a decree against opposite party No. 2 in Money Suit No. 173 of 1958. She levied execution in Execution Case No. 32 of 1960 against opposite party No. 2 on 14-11-1960. No fresh writ of attachment was issued. The Petitioner herself did not want the writ of attachment to issue and asked the Court to issue only valuation notice. Accordingly on 4-1-1961 attachment notice was not served and valuation notice was issued. On 4-4-1961 opposite party No. 1 filed Execution Case No. 8 of 1961 against opposite party No. 2 and his brothers. On 12-4-1961 opposite party No. 1 attached the entire property under Order 21, Rule 5. CPC Code. On 17-11-1961 the Court, at the instance of opposite party No. 2, stayed confirmation of sale in the execution case of opposite party No. 1, but allowed the sale to proceed. On 27-11-1961 opposite party No. 2 filed an application u/s 152, CPC for amendment of the decree in M.S. No. 38 of 1957. This was registered as c. Case No. 2 of) 962. On 10th, 11 the and 12th January, 1962 opposite party No. 1 purchased the entire interest of opposite party No. 2 and his brothers in the 11 lots in Execution Case No. 8 of 1961. After his purchase and before confirmation on 10-2-1962 under Order 21, Rule 91, CPC in Execution Care No. 8 of 1961 he applied to release from his attachment 30 lots including 5 lots attached by the Petitioner. These 5 lots are Lots Nos. After his purchase and before confirmation on 10-2-1962 under Order 21, Rule 91, CPC in Execution Care No. 8 of 1961 he applied to release from his attachment 30 lots including 5 lots attached by the Petitioner. These 5 lots are Lots Nos. 14, 29, 32, 78 and 79. As would be subsequently stated, these five lots are no longer in dispute and the order has been passed in favour of the Petitioner. On 12-3-1962 opposite party No. 1 filed an application u/s 151, CPC in Execution Case No. 32 of 1960 to release 11 lots from the attachment of Soudamini which include 5 lot already released as per his application dated 10-2-1962. On 15-3-1962 these 11 lots were released from attachment of the Petitioner and the sale was confirmed on 2-4-1962. On 5-5-1902 c. Case No. 2 of 1962 was allowed. The decree in M.S. No. 38 of 1957 was amended and was brought in accordance with the judgment. On 17-7-1962 Civil Revision No. 129 of 1962 was filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 15-3-1932 releasing 11 lots of properties. On 19-7-1903 this Court remanded the case for disposal in accordance with law and the directions given therein. Though it was directed that the case was to be disposed of within three months, the learned Subordinate Judge disposed it of not even within one year. Explanation was obtained from him on the administrative side and no action was taken as he tendered unqualified apology for having lost sight of the matter due to inadvertence. On 1-9-1964 he allowed c. Case No. 19 of 1962 and released 11 lots from attachment. It appears that the office brought to the notice of the learned Subordinate Judge that on the application of opposite party no 1 five lots had already been ordered not to be released and that his judgment required to be corrected. Accordingly on 3-9-1964 the learned Subordinate Judge suo motu reviewed his order and passed final order to the effect. Except lot Nos. 14, 29, 32, 78 and 79 the rest of the lots should, therefore, be released. The rest of the lots undisputedly are lots 1, 5, 35, 67, 69 and 74. To clarify the position further, these lots had been attached by the Petitioner in her execution case, and by the orders dated 1-9-1964 and 3-11-1964 these lots were released from attachment of the Petitioner. The rest of the lots undisputedly are lots 1, 5, 35, 67, 69 and 74. To clarify the position further, these lots had been attached by the Petitioner in her execution case, and by the orders dated 1-9-1964 and 3-11-1964 these lots were released from attachment of the Petitioner. Against these two orders, the Civil Revision has been filed. 2. In course of the hearing of the Civil Revision, a chart was supplied by Mr. Ray showing that even in respect of these six lots, opposite party No. 1 had no interest in many of the properties. The chart shows that the following properties were attached by Soudamini ra in Money Suit No. 173 of 1958 before judgment. Serial No. Lot. Nos. Khata-Plot Nos. 1. 1 Khata 13-1, Plot Nos. 115, 116,135, 163, 335, 354, 356, 417, 424,502, 515, 544, 551, 580, 591, 629,630, 631, 632, 788, 80 and 869.(Out of these plots, Fagunmani has no interest in plot No. 580 2. 5 Khata 50, Plot Nos. 40, 41 and 53.(Fagunmani has no interest in this lot). 3. 35. Khata 86, Plot Nos. 1421, 1432,1437, 1456, and 1589.(Out of these, Fagunmani has no interest in plots 1421, 1456 and 1589) 4. 67 Khata 128, Plot Nos. 401 and 644. (Fagunmani has no interest in this lot). 5. 69 Khata 107, Plot 564(Fagunmani has no interest in this lot). 6. 74 Khata 107, Plot 559(Fagunmani has no interest in this, plot). Mr. Das was called upon to file a statement as to whether the chart, given by Mr. Ray, is correct or not. He filed a memo accepting the correctness of the chart and in the memo he has clearly stated that Fagunmani has no interest in the lots, Khatas and plot numbers mentioned above. The learned Subordinate Judge handled this case without knowing the real position that in many of the properties Fagunmani has absolutely no interest. The case has been dragging on for years to decide the question whether even those properties would be released from the attachment of Soudamini. Mr. Das made a faint effort to advance a contention that even for academic purposes, Courts can go into and decide titles even though the persons claiming interest are not before them. It is fundamental that Courts are not to examine questions on academic grounds. Mr. Mr. Das made a faint effort to advance a contention that even for academic purposes, Courts can go into and decide titles even though the persons claiming interest are not before them. It is fundamental that Courts are not to examine questions on academic grounds. Mr. Das was not even able to tell me the purchasers of various properties in respect of which Fagunmani claims no title. In this state of affairs, the learned Subordinate Judge should not have allowed Court's time and energy to be wasted without dismissing the application in limine. If Fagunmani has no interest in those properties, and if the claimants, whether real or fictitious, were not before the Court, there was no necessity for any investigation as to whether those properties should be released from attachment of the Petitioner or not. On this simple ground the application dated 12-3-1962 for release of the properties from attachment is dismissed in respect of the aforesaid properties in which Fagunmani claims no interest. 3. Before the learned Subordinate Judge, the release from attachment was claimed under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code. Mr. Das makes a statement before me that he argued the case in the lower Court on alternative basis. In this Court he abandoned his case under Order 21, Rule 58, CPC Code. It is, therefore, not necessary to examine the question whether opposite party No. 1 is entitled to any relief under Order 21, Rule 58, CPC in respect of properties in which he claims interest. 4. The next question for consideration is whether the application dated 12-3-1962 under section, 151, CPC Code, filed by opposite party No. 1 in c. Case No. 19 of 1962 in Execution Case No. 32 of 960 to release six lots of properties, which were purchased in Execution Case No. 8 of 1961, should have been allowed on 3-9-1964. The averments in the petition bringing the case u/s 151, CPC are that he Purchased the properties on 11-1-962 at the haziest bid, that if those properties are sold in Execution Case No. 32 of 1960, he would be put to great loss and that as confirmation of sale and delivery of possession had not taken place, there was no other alternative for opposite party No. 1 than making the application u/s 151, CPC Code. 5. 5. Section 151, CPC lays down Nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court The averments in the application do not make out a case as to how the exercise of the inherent power of the Court was necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Opposite party No. 1 did not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed the facts which have already been mentioned in the narration of facts. Those may be reiterated here for clear analysis if Section 151 should be resorted to. On 11-3-1960 the judgment in favour of opposite party No. 1 in Money Suit No. 38 of 1957 declared that opposite party No. 2 and his brothers would be liable to the extent of their interests they inherited from their father. The decree passed on 22-9-1960 was not in conformity with the judgment. On 17-11-1961, opposite party No. 2 filed an application u/s 152, CPC in c. Case No. 2 of 1962 for amendment of the decree in Money Suit No. 38 of 1957 to bring it in accord with the judgment. With fun knowledge of all these facts from the various proceedings in which he was a party, opposite party No. 1 filed the application u/s 151, CPC and did not refer to those facts in it. On the contrary, the Petitioner brought into record all these materials and these facts were before the Court. 6. The point for consideration is whether in this state of affairs the application u/s 151 should have been allowed on 15-3-1962 whereafter the confirmation of sale in Execution Case No. 8 of 1961 was made on 2-4-1962. Opposite party No. 2 had filed an application on 27-11-1961 u/s 152, CPC wherein amendment of the decree has been sought for to bring it into conformity with the judgment. Such an application is bound to succeed u/s 152, CPC and in fact was allowed ultimately on 5-5-1962. When the decree does Dot correctly expressed what was really decided and intended by the Court, the Court has an inherent power to amend the decree so as to carry out its own meaning. Such an application is bound to succeed u/s 152, CPC and in fact was allowed ultimately on 5-5-1962. When the decree does Dot correctly expressed what was really decided and intended by the Court, the Court has an inherent power to amend the decree so as to carry out its own meaning. In exercising this power the Court is correcting what is really a take of its ministerial officers by whom the decree was drawn up. In Mellor v. Swire Bowen L.J. 1885 L.R. 30 Ch.D. 239. observed - Every Court has inherent power over its own records as long as those records are within its power, and that it can set right any take in them. It seems to me that it would be perfectly shocking if the Court could not rectify an error which is really the error of its own minister. An order, as it seems to me even when passed and entered, may be amended by the Court so as to carry out the intention and express the meaning of the Court so as to carry out the intention and express the meaning of the Court at the time when the order was made, provided the amendment be made without injustice or on terms which preclude injustice. This observation was quoted with approval in AIR 1926 P.C. 136 . The learned Subordinate Judge, to whose notice the matter had been brought, should not have allowed the application u/s 151, CPC within 3 days of its filing whereafter the confirmation of sale was made on 2-4-1962. 7. The inherent powers exercised u/s 151, CPC are discretionary. In considering the question of propriety in invoking the power, the Court should take into account several matters, Come of which are the complexity of the question involved, availability of a more complete and efficacious remedy by means of a suit and the apparent justice of the claim. These are not exhaustive but merely illustrative. They would vary according to the facts and Circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. Judged by the aforesaid test, it would be manifest that this case illustrates one which involves complexity of facts. The justice of the claim is adverse to opposite party No. 1. These are not exhaustive but merely illustrative. They would vary according to the facts and Circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. Judged by the aforesaid test, it would be manifest that this case illustrates one which involves complexity of facts. The justice of the claim is adverse to opposite party No. 1. He was riding roughshod over the interest of opposite party No. 2 in the six lots of properties with full knowledge that those are not liable for attachment for sale in execution of the decree against his father. He knew that the Petitioner had a decree against opposite party No. 2, that he had also filed an execution case and that opposite party No. 2 had filed an application for amendment of the decree. In such circumstances, the justice of the claim is dead against opposite party No. 1. The sale had been effected in favour of opposite party No. 1 between 10-1-1962 to 12-1-1962. The confirmation of sale in Execution Case No. 8 of 1961 effected on 2-4-1962 cannot be assailed in these proceedings at the instance of the Petitioner. If opposite party No. 1 has acquired a valid title in the interest of opposite party No. 2 in the six lots of properties, it cannot be assailed even though the very properties are not released from attachment in Execution Case No. 32 of 1960. The prayer for release is only to avoid multiplicity of litigations. It would be proper not to exercise the interest power u/s 151, CPC so as to release the interest of opposite party No. 2 in the six lots of properties from the attachment of the Petitioner. Parties should establish their mutual rights in a properly constituted suit for a more complete and efficacious remedy. For all these reasons, the application u/s 151, CPC should be dismissed. It is to be noted that none of these considerations was noticed in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. 8. Mr. Das placed reliance on AIR 1953 P.C. 23 in support of a contention that this Court should not interfere with the discretion of the lower Court in exercise of its power u/s 115, CPC Code. The learned Subordinate Judge did not allow the application dated 12-3-1962 by invoking his inherent power u/s 151, CPC Code. His judgment does not at an refer to it. The learned Subordinate Judge did not allow the application dated 12-3-1962 by invoking his inherent power u/s 151, CPC Code. His judgment does not at an refer to it. The application had been allowed under Order 21, Rule 58, CPC which was abandoned in this Court. The trial Court not having exercised its inherent power in favour of opposite party No. 1, the question of this Court interfering with the discretionary power of the lower Court does not arise. The factual and legal aspect pertaining to Section 157, CPC have been examined by me for the first time in this Court as Mr. Das wanted to justify the order of the learned Subordinate Judge only on its basis. The learned Subordinate Judge exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity and this Court has full power to quash such an order u/s 115, CPC Code. AIR 1953 P.C. 23 does not stand in the way. 9. In the result, the order dated 3-9-1964 is quashed and the application dated 12-3-1962 is dismissed. The revision is allowed with costs. Hearing fee of Rs. 100/ - (Rupees hundred only). Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed