ORDER :- This is a revision petition filed under Sections 115 and 151 C.P.C. by the petitioner-plaintiff in Civil Misc. Case No. 62 of 1966 in M.S. No. 35 of 1965 on the file of the First Munsiff in Imphal against his order dated 30-8-66, refusing to amend the patta number of the suit land and review the judgement dismissing the suit. 2. The petitioner filed Money Suit No. 35 of 1965 on the file of the First Munsiffs Court in Imphal against the respondent claiming Rs. 525 towards the price of paddy due to him as rent for the land 1.50 acres in extent, situate in Purna Heituppokpi, covered by patta No. 132/60-Kh. corresponding to old patta No. 132/33, the petitioner, however, wrongly described the old patta in the plaint as "No. 132/133-Kh.". 3. The respondent filed written statement contending that he was not a tenant of old patta No. 132/133-Kh. and denied his liability to pay the rent. 4. The Munsiff framed issues, one of which related to the correctness of the number of the old patta. 5. After trial, the Munsiff held that the petitioner purchased the land covered by old patta No. 132/133-Kh. and not 132/ 133 and that the respondent is not a tenant of the land covered by old patta No. 132/ 133-Kh. and dismissed the suit with costs. 6. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Case No. 62 of 1962 on the file of the lower Court under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C. to review the judgement. He alleged that the correct patta was "132/33" but that it was wrongly typed as "132/133" and that, therefore, the judgement and decree should be reviewed and the mistake should be rectified. The Munsiff held, firstly, that the so-called mistake was not an inadvertent one and secondly, that the petition with a joint prayer for review and rectification under Order 47 Rule 1 and Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is not maintainable. He, therefore, dismissed the petition. Hence, the present revision petition. 7. The respondent appeared in person. But he stated that he could not engage any Advocate and could not advance any argument in support of the order of the lower Court. 8. He, therefore, dismissed the petition. Hence, the present revision petition. 7. The respondent appeared in person. But he stated that he could not engage any Advocate and could not advance any argument in support of the order of the lower Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that though an issue was framed regarding the correctness of the number of the old patta and evidence was also adduced, he discovered the mistake committed by the typist in typing the patta number as "132/133" instead of "132/33" after the judgement was delivered. The petitioner purchased the land in question from P.W. 3 (Kusumbi Singh) under Ext. A/1, registered sale deed. In Ext. A/1 the number of patta was mentioned as "132/33". Ext. A/2 is the Katcha patta standing in the name of the petitioner. In that also, the number of patta was mentioned as "132/33". Ext. A/3 is the revenue receipt for the year, 1960-61. So, the evidence of the petitioner, his vendor P.W. 3 (Kusumbi Singh) and the documents go to show that the number of the old Patta is 132/33. As such, it was wrongly typed as "132/133" in the plaint and the mistake was persisted in, till it was pointed out by the Munsiff in his judgement. The petitioner does not appear to have opened his eyes, when the respondent denied the correctness of the number of the patta. But this is purely a clerical mistake, which can be rectified at any time by the Court, even under its inherent power under Section 151 C.P.C., or under Sections 152 and 153 C.P.C. A party should not be allowed to suffer on account of such a clerical mistake. Vide Piare Lal v. Bhagwan Das. AIR 1933 All. 295. That such a clerical mistake in the description of the suit land can be rectified even after the disposal of the second appeal is also clear from C. Katamraju v. M. Paripurnanandam, AIR 1949 Mad 282. The fact that the petitioner made two prayers in the petition, namely, amendment of the number of the patta under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. and another for review 01 the judgement under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. does not entail the dismissal of the petition. Both the provisions of law are equally applicable to this case. 9. The fact that the petitioner made two prayers in the petition, namely, amendment of the number of the patta under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. and another for review 01 the judgement under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. does not entail the dismissal of the petition. Both the provisions of law are equally applicable to this case. 9. The clerical mistake with regard to the old number of the patta is, therefore, [to be rectified. The petitioner is hereby permitted to correct it as patta No. 132/33-Kh. 10. I do not, however, propose to decree the suit by reviewing the judgement in this revision petition. For, the written statement filed by the respondent shows that he raised several other pleas, which were not disposed of by the Munsiff. The judgement of the Munsiff shows that he dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the petitioner wrongly described the number of the patta of the suit land. So, the Munsiff is directed to dispose of the suit afresh on the basis that the number of the patta is "132/33-Kh.". The Munsiff should permit the petitioner to amend the plaint and plaint-schedule by correctly mentioning the number of the patta. The Munsiff should also give opportunity to both the parties to lead additional evidence, if any, oral and documentary. He should then dispose of the suit afresh. 11. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the Munsiff in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 62 of 1962 is set aside. The judgement and decree of the Munsiff in M.S. No. 35 of 1965 dated 30-8-1966 are also set aside. The Munsiff is directed to dispose of the suit afresh in the light of the observations made herein. I direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this revision petition, as the petitioner has to blame himself for the clerical mistake committed by him. Petition allowed.