ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 4-12-1979 passed by the Additional Civil Judge Bulandshahr and the order dated 21-8-1977 and 15-2-1977 passed in the proceedings under S. 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short the Act). 2. The facts lie in a very narrow compass and they are these. Notice under Sec. 10(2) of the Act was served on the petitioner with a copy of the statement prepared under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 10 of the Act calling upon him to show cause within a period specified in the notice as to why the statement be not taken as correct. The petitioner filed an objection that he has no surplus land and the notice was incorrect and is liable to be discharged. 3. The prescribed Authority determined some land as surplus. The petitioner preferred an appeal under S. 14(5) of the Act which was allowed by order dated 26-11-1975 to the extent that an area of 1 bigha & four biswas was surplus and this may be taken from plot No. 433/1 situated in village Dongarpur. But later on it was discovered that in that village the petitioner has no such plot, rather he has plot No. 533 which has an area of 1 bigha & 3 biswas and in that plot also he has only ?th share. The State of U.P. thereafter filed an application purporting to be under Ss. 152 and 153, C.P.C. for correction of the order dated 26-11-1975 passed by the Additional Civil Judge allowing the appeal of the petitioner. This application was, however, disposed of by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 15-2-1977 (anexure `1' to the petition) that the matter may be referred to the same appellate court which decided the appeal. The matter was placed before the same appellate court and it has decided the same by the impugned order dated 4-12-1979 (Annexure `4' to the petition) and the certified copy of the order was also filed that the surplus land indicated to be taken from the petitioner may not be taken from his plot No. 433/1 but from his plot Nos. 434, 452 and 533 etc. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed. 4. 434, 452 and 533 etc. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed. 4. Sri R. K. Asthana, appearing for the petitioner, urged that no ground was made out for allowing the application under Ss. 152 and 153, C.P.C. as there was no clerical or arithmetical mistake nor any accidental slip or omission. It was further urged that when the order dated 4-12-1979 making the correction in the order dated 26-11-1975 was passed U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act (Act XVIII of 1973) which came into force on 8-6-1973 was passed and in view of Sec. 19 of that Act all proceedings for determination of surplus land under Ss. 9, 10, 11 etc. pending before any court or authority at the time of the commencement of the said Act shall abate and the Prescribed Authority shall start the proceedings for determination of ceiling area afresh. Hence all those proceedings having been abated, there was no question of making any correction in the same. 5. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, urged that in the instant case the order dated 26-11-1975 and before that even the order of the Prescribed Authority was passed after 8-6-1973 when the U.P. Act No. XVIII of 1973 itself came into force, hence there was no question of applying the said provisions of Sec. 19 of the Amending Act and that as the mistake was committed by the court itself inasmuch as while allowing the appeal it was not necessary to be indicated that the area declared surplus (1 bigha 4 biswas) may be taken from plot No. 433/1 situate in village Doongarpur it has legally been corrected. In fact he had no plot there and it was actually a case of latent ambiguity which could be explained by evidence. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by either side and perused the record of the case. 7. In fact he had no plot there and it was actually a case of latent ambiguity which could be explained by evidence. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by either side and perused the record of the case. 7. As regards the first submission that it was not a case for correction of the judgment or decree under S. 152 or 153, C.P.C. suffice it to say that it was an error or bona fide mistake in the order of the appellate court inasmuch as unless it was ascertained whether the petitioner has any plot No. 433 in Village Doongarpur, there was no necessity to make observation that the land declared surplus may be taken from the petitioner's plot No. 433 in Village Doongarpur. The language of Sec. 152, C.P.C. is couched in such a form that it embraces all bona fide mistakes or omissions or arithmetical or clerical mistakes. It is better to specify that an arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation while clerical mistake is of a writing or typing, that an accidental slip or error is an error due to careless mistake or omission unintentionally made and that such mistake should be apparent on the face of the record. Further it should not depend for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of law and facts. In the instant case, it does appear that it was an accidental slip or error that certain plot No. 433 situated in Village Doongarpur was mentioned. (See Master Construction Co. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1047 . The appellate court was justified in correcting its mistake which has crept in its order unintentionally. This argument of the learned counsel has no substance. 8. As regards the second limb of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Sec. 19 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act No. 18 of 1973 the proceedings for determination of surplus land abated upon the enforcement of this Amending Act on 8-6-1973, hence the application for correction of the order provided for under Secs. 152 and 153, C.P.C. also abated. In any case those proceedings for declaration of the surplus land of the petitioner also abated and there remains nothing to be corrected is equally without any substance. 152 and 153, C.P.C. also abated. In any case those proceedings for declaration of the surplus land of the petitioner also abated and there remains nothing to be corrected is equally without any substance. The relevant statutory provision of Sec. 19 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1973 is fruitfully extracted below :- "19(1) All proceedings for the determination of surplus land under sec. 9, sec. 10, sec. 11 sec. 12, sec. 13 or sec. 30 of the principal Act, pending before any court or authority at the time of commencement of this Act, shall abate and the prescribed authority shall start the proceedings for determination of the ceiling area under that Act afresh by issue of a notice under sub-sec.(2) of sec. 9 of that Act as inserted by this Act : Provided that the ceiling area in such cases shall be determined in the following manner. (a) firstly, the ceiling area shall be determined in accordance with the principal Act, as it stood before its amendment by this Act: (b) thereafter, the ceiling area shall be re-determined in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act. (2) Notwithstanding, anything in sub-section (1), any proceeding under sec. 14 or under Chapter III or Chapter IV of the principal Act, in respect of any tenure-holder in relation to whom the surplus land has been determined finally before the commencement of this Act, may be continued and concluded in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act, without prejudice to the applicability of the provision of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 9 and sec. 13-A of that Act, as inserted by this Act, in respect of such land." 9. From the above statutory provisions it is clear that the proceedings for determination of surplus land under sec. 9, 10 or S. 11 etc. pending before any court or authority at the time of the commencement of this Amendment Act shall abate. But in the instant case the proceedings itself have started after the Amendment Act came into force on 8-6-1973. The order in appeal out of which the grievance of the petitioner arose was also passed on 26-11-1975 and after 8-6-1973 the order of the Prescribed Authority was also passed. But in the instant case the proceedings itself have started after the Amendment Act came into force on 8-6-1973. The order in appeal out of which the grievance of the petitioner arose was also passed on 26-11-1975 and after 8-6-1973 the order of the Prescribed Authority was also passed. Hence the proceeding out of which this petition arose and which was the proceeding for determination of the surplus land was not pending when U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973 came into force, rather the proceeding started after the Amendment Act came into force. Hence sec. 19(1) of the Amendment Act extracted above would not apply. 10. Further I am of the opinion that in any case even assuming the proceeding for determination of the surplus land was decided before 8-6-1973 when the U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973 came into force, in that case sec. 19(2) of the Amendment Act extracted above, would not apply and the proceeding would be covered by the old Act as if this new Amendment Act has not come into force. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection invited my attention to Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1976 SC 443 . But that was a case where sec. 19(1) and its proviso was considered which does not apply here inasmuch as the proceeding for determination of the surplus land under Ss. 9, 10 etc. were not pending when the Amendment Act No. 18 of 1973 came into force. This case has been considered in the impugned order dated 4-12-1979 passed by the Additional Civil Judge also and under para 5 thereof it has been held that the Amendment Act No. 13 of 1973 would not apply and the Additional Civil Judge was emphatic and clear that the Amendment Act came into force on 8-6-1973 and after that date the Prescribed Authority had given notice to the petitioner and the proceeding started against the petitioner and the appeal was decided thereafter. I am in agreement with the observations made by the Additional Civil Judge that he was of the view that the case of Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P. (Supra) would not help the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel further placed reliance on Dadich Singh v. State of U.P., 1979 All WC 617 (DB). I am in agreement with the observations made by the Additional Civil Judge that he was of the view that the case of Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P. (Supra) would not help the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel further placed reliance on Dadich Singh v. State of U.P., 1979 All WC 617 (DB). But that was a case when the Amendment Act came into force and the proceedings for determination of surplus land were pending and the appeal and proceedings had abated and in that connection this Court held that the previous proceedings were abated and washed away. But in the instant case, as observed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, the proceeding appears to have been initiated after 8-6-1973 when the Amendment Act No. 18 of 1973 came into force, hence case of Dadich Singh also would not help the petitioner. 13. As regards the bona fide mistake or omission on the part of the court as contemplated by sec. 152 is concerned, in the instant case, it appears that it was a case of latent ambiguity covered by S. 95 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and it is patently clear that if it is a case with latent ambiguity in the order or judgment it can be corrected, under Sec. 95 of the Evidence Act to the effect that when language used in the document is plain in itself but is unmeaningful in reference to existing facts, evidence may be given to show that it was used in a peculiar sense. 14. This S. 95 is based on a latin maxim "Ambiguitas Verborum Latens verificatione suppletur, Nam quod ex Facto Oritur Ambiguum verification facti Tollitur" which obviously means that a latent ambiguity in the words, written instruments or order may be explained later on, if it is in the written instruments by evidence. In the instant case as the appellate court directed that an area of 1 bigha & 4 biswas may be taken from plot No. 433 in Village Doongarpur but as the petitioner has no such plot in village Doongarpur, rather he has got plot No. 533 in which the petitioner had only ?th share which was not sufficient for the area of surplus land declared as the petitioner has four plots and he agreed also that the area declared surplus may be taken from his plots Nos. 434, 532 and 533 etc. 434, 532 and 533 etc. as is clear from the observations made in para 8 of the order dated 4-12-1979 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, hence correction can be allowed. I am accordingly of the view that the order for correction has correctly been passed by the Additional Civil Judge and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no legs to stand. 15. In the result, the petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.