This is an application under section 152 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the decree dated 25.6.71 of the Court of Munsiff I, Manipur, passed in Original Suit No. 1 of 1970. which has since been confirmed by the lower appellate Court, and by this Court in Second Appeal No. 37 of 1973. 2. The petitioners are the decree-holders of the suit, O.S. No.1 of 1970. fn the schedule to the plaint the description of the suit land was given as the homestead land under patta No. 11 (New) corresponding old patta No. 887 of village No. 85 I.W.T. shortly described as patta No. 85/11 (New) 85/887 (old) I.W.T. It is stated as the Bar that in the patta "85' is the number of the village and 11' is the number of toe patta, similarly, the old patta 85' was the number of the village and 887' was the number of the patta. The suit was decreed by the Court of Munsiff I, Manipur. It is admi­tted that when the decree was prepared, istead of patta No. 85/11 (New), 85/887 (old) it was described as patta No. 65/11 (New) 65/887 (old). It appears that oblivious of this mistake the opposite parties went on appeal and in the memo of appeal the pitta number was stated as 'patta No. 85/11 (New) 85/887 (Old)' and not 65/11 (New) 65/887 (Old), A Second appeal was taken to this Court and in that Second Appeal No 37 of 1973, the decree was confirmed. It is admitted that in the memo of Second Appeal also the patta number was given as 85/11 (New) 85/887 (Old)' and not'65/11 (New) 65/887(Old)". 3. At the execution stage the defendant-opposite parties pointed out and objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that the decree described the patta No. 65,11 (New) 65/887 (Old) and not 85/11 (New) 85/887 (Old) and having thus mistakenly referred to another land in another village the decree could not be executed. The petitioner-decree holder under the predicament filed an application before the learned trial Court, praying for correction/amendment of the patta number from 65/11 (New) 65/887 (Old)' to 85/11 (New) 85/887 (Old), stating that it was a mistake in preparation of the decree. The petitioner-decree holder under the predicament filed an application before the learned trial Court, praying for correction/amendment of the patta number from 65/11 (New) 65/887 (Old)' to 85/11 (New) 85/887 (Old), stating that it was a mistake in preparation of the decree. The learned trial Court (Munsiff of Imphal) by order dated 29th July 1981, in Execution Case No. 5 of 1980, while reali­sing the necessity of the correction as prayed, held that his Court had no power or jurisdiction to amend the decree as it had been subsequently confirmed by the first appellate Court as well as by the second appellate court. Hence, this application for amendment of the decree. 4 Mr. R.K. Nokulsana Singh, the learned counsel for the applicants, submits that though the parties throughout proceeded on the basis of the patta number as 85/11 (New) 85/887 (old) it was at the stage of the preparation of the decree at the Court of the first instance that the error crept in and as such it was purely a ministerial error and the court should amend the decree by correcting the patta number. He further submits that such a correction of the decree will not, in any way, prejudice or affect either of the parties or any other person inasmuch as no right, title or interest has since been created on the basis of the erroneous patta No. 65/11 (New) 65/887 (old) in the decree. 5. Mr. N. Kerani Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite parties demurs that it was due to error committed by the decree-holder-applicant as plaintiff that the decree was prepared with patta No. as 65/11 (New) 65/187 (old) and at least at the first appellate stage and also at the second appellate stage it ought to nave come to the notice of the decree-holder-applicant and be having not pointed out the error at that stage he should not be allowed the prayer for amendment at this stage. (6) Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for amendment of judgments, decrees or orders. (6) Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for amendment of judgments, decrees or orders. Under it "Clerical arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the appilcation of any of the parties." It is settled law that every court has inherent power to vary or amend its own decree or order so as to carry out its own meaning. In so doing it does nothing but exercise its power to correct a mistake of a ministerial officer by whom the decree or order was drawn up. It only insists that the decree drawn up in the office of the court should correctly express the judgment given by the Court. When an error of this kind has been committed it is always within the competency of the court, if nothing has inter­vened which would render it inexpedient or inequitable to do so, to correct the record in order to bring it into harmony with the order which the Judge obviously meant to pronounce. 7. In the instant case, admittedly the plaintiff in the original suit mentioned the patta number as 85/11 (New) 85/887 (old) and on that basis the parties proceeded and the judgment pro­nounced. Only when the decree was prepared the error crept in typing 65' in place of 85'. This is clearly an accidental slip of inadvertent error which could by no means affect the judgment of the court. Admittedly, even at the first appellate as well as in second appellate stage the parties proceeded on the basis of patta No. 85/11 (New) 85/887 (old) despite the fact that in the decree prepared it was 65/11 (New) 65/887 (old). The parties were oblivious of this mistake because the decree was never expected to be different from what the court itself pronounced. 8. Section 152 is based on two important principles, first that an act of the court shall prejudice no party, and secondly, the courts have a duty to see that their records are true and they represent the correct state of affairs. When it does not, the court has no alternative but to rectify the mistake. In the instant case, it is the duty of the court of record to see that the records are correctly preserved. 9. When it does not, the court has no alternative but to rectify the mistake. In the instant case, it is the duty of the court of record to see that the records are correctly preserved. 9. It is an inherent power of the Court to set right the mistake in its records. As Bowen L. J. held in Mellore vs. Swire (1885) 30 Ch. D 239, "every Court has inherent power over its own records so long as those records are within its powers and that it can set right any mistake in them. An order even when passed and entered may be amended by the Court so as to carry out its intention and express the meaning of the Court when the order was made." Inadvertent mistakes can always be corrected. In Janakiramma Iyer v. Nilakanta Iyer, AIR 1962 SC 633 in the decree drawn up by the High Court the words "mense profits" were inadvertently used instead of "net profits" probably because somewhere in the judgment those words were inadvertently used. Supreme Court held that the use of the words "mense profits" in the context was obviously the result, of inad­vertence in view of the fact that in the decree of the trial Court the words "net profits" were used, and that the mistake could be corrected under section 151 and 152 of the C. P. C. 0.20 R. 3 of the Code, under which a judgment once signed by the judge it cannot be altered or added to, expressly provides that a correction can be made under S. 152 of the Code. The inherent power is not affected by 0.20 R. 3 of the Code. As has been ruled in Samarendra Nath Sinha vs. Krishna Kumar Nag, AIR 1967 SC 1440 , it is now well settled that there is an inherent power in the Court which passed the judgment to correct a clerical mistake of an error arising from an accidental slip or omission and to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning. Under S. 152 clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either on its own motion or on an application by any of the parties. Under S. 152 clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either on its own motion or on an application by any of the parties. Errors arising from an accidental slip can be corrected subsequently cot only in a decree drawn up by a ministerial officer of the Court but even in a judgment pronounced and signed by the Court. 10. In Munni lal vs. Smt. Sona AIR 1982 All 29 , it has been held that error in preparation of a decree could be corre­cted under section 152 C. P. C. In Nand Ram and others vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 Punjab and Hariyana 184, even an omission in the judgment while awarding interest on compensation was held to be an accidental slip within the meaning of S. 152 C. P. C. so that it could be rectified at any time under the section. In Jayakrishna Mangaraj Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1976 Orissa 203, where a decree granting compensation did not award statutory interest and the same was confirmed on appeal, and the petition to correct the decree was made nearly six years thereafter it was allowed but the petitioner was saddled with cost. 11. It has been contended that this Court having not com­mitted the error it has no jurisdiction to correct it. Even though the submission appeared to be of some force at the first blush, after close scrutiny, it is found that this Court has affirmed the decree on the basis of the memo of appeal and the evidence on record, which nowhere mention the patta number as 65/11 (New) 65/887 (Old).' The decree with the mistake having been affirmed, it does not represent the judgment of this Court or the decree passed by this Court; and the decree affirmed is not the mistaken decree of the trial Court. It is here that by implication, this Court's records will be erroneous if the trial Court's decree is not corrected accordingly. 12. Amendment without notice to the affected party may be illegal. But, in the instant case there is no such objection and this application is heard in presence of the parties. 13. It is here that by implication, this Court's records will be erroneous if the trial Court's decree is not corrected accordingly. 12. Amendment without notice to the affected party may be illegal. But, in the instant case there is no such objection and this application is heard in presence of the parties. 13. It is accordingly ordered that the patta number in the decree as confirmed by this Court be corrected as patta No. 85/11 (New) 85/887 (Old) I. W. T. in place of 65/11 (New) 65/887 (Old) and the decree be executed as so corrected. The applica­tion is allowed and the rule is made absolute. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.