YOGESHWAR DAYAL ( 1 ) THIS is an application for the exercise of power of this Court under Ss. 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of an order of this Court dated 28th April, 1983 passed on an application for staying the execution of the decree. (CM No. 463/83) (By clerical mistake the order purpor to have been passed in DM No. 49/83. There was no CM No. 49/83. The number of RSA was 49/83 and the typist while typing gave wrong number of CM ). The application for amendment has been filed in the following circumstances : The present Regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14th Feb. , 1983 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi decreeing the claim of the respondent-Prem Raj for a decree for possession of the property in dispute. ( 2 ) THE respondent-Prem Raj had filed a suit in the Civil Court for recovery of rent for the period March, 1977 to Dec. , 1977 at the rate of Rs. 80. 00 per month and for recovery of arrears of rent from Jan. , 1978 to August, 1978 at the contracted rate of Rs. 250. 00 per month and also prayed for a decree for possession of the property in dispute which was claimed to be a vacant plot of land. ( 3 ) THE trial Court after examining the evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiffrespondent vis-a-vis arrears of rent as stated earlier but dismissed the suit for possession of the property in dispute by holding that property in dispute was premises within the meaning of Delhi Rent Control Act and consequently Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession. ( 4 ) THE present appellant who was defendant in the trial Court was not aggrieved by the decree for arrears of rent passed by the trial Court and consequently filed no appeal. It was only plaintiff-respondent, Prem Raj who filed an appeal against the decree of the trial Court whereby the trial Court had declined to give relief of possession. It was only plaintiff-respondent, Prem Raj who filed an appeal against the decree of the trial Court whereby the trial Court had declined to give relief of possession. The lower appellate Court accepted the appeal of the plaintiff and held that the property in dispute was a vacant plot of land and was not the premises within the meaning of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and, therefore, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession of the property in dispute. The lower appellate Court, thus, varied the decree of the trial Court and thereby decreed the suit of the plaintiff fully. ( 5 ) THE defendant Ved Prakash then filed a Regular Second Appeal which has been registered as RSA No. 49/83. The appeal being against the decree of lower appellate Court could only challenge the relief of possession which had been allowed to plaintiff-respondent Prem Raj and the appeal was also admitted by the learned single Judge of this Court only on the question of possession. The learned single Judge while admitting the appeal also considered the stay application which had been filed by the defendant-appellant, CM No. 463/83 and while giving notice of this application also stayed the operation of the impugned order, namely, the operation of the order passed by lower appellate Court. ( 6 ) THE stay application (CM No. 463/83) came up before me on 28th April, 1983 i. e. the date for which notice had been given to the respondent of the stay application. On that date 1 passed the following order : "heard. The ad interim order dated 24th March 1983 is made absolute on the condition that the appellant deposits the arrears of rent/damages @ Rs. 80. 00 per month with effect from 1st March, 1977 up to 30th April, 1983 within two months from today. Parties are at liberty to apply. The appellant also undertakes that he will deposit the future rent also month by month in the trial. " ( 7 ) THE result of this order was that though the defendant-appellant had never appealed against the decree which had been passed by the trial Court yet the appellant got the advantage of staying in premises by paying Rs. 80. 00 per month only. ( 8 ) THE present application for amendment was filed only on 31st Oct. " ( 7 ) THE result of this order was that though the defendant-appellant had never appealed against the decree which had been passed by the trial Court yet the appellant got the advantage of staying in premises by paying Rs. 80. 00 per month only. ( 8 ) THE present application for amendment was filed only on 31st Oct. , 1984 and it has been urged in this application that either there was a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the direction to the appellant to deposit only Rs. 80. 00 per month or it is a case of accidental slip or omission inasmuch as it was not brought to the notice of the Court that the order of the trial Court vis-a-vis the rate of rent had become final. Learned counsel for the respondentapplicant brought to my notice a decision in the case of Mt. Jamna Kuer v. Lal Bahadur, AIR 1950 FC 131 wherein the Federal Court while interpreting the expression, "mistake apparent on face of record" under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure held that, "where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, whether the error occurred by reason of the counsel s mistake or it crept in by reason of an oversight on the part of the Court, is not a circumstance which can affect the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court to review its decision. " ( 9 ) THE objection of Mr. Rajinder Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant is that if this application is for review then it is barred by time as it was not filed within the period allowed by law for filing review application. ( 10 ) MR. Ishwar Sahai in order to meet this argument submitted that even if the present case cannot be treated as case of clerical or arithmetical mistake, it is a case of accidental slip or omission. It was submitted that it can be specifically noticed from para 6 of the judgment under appeal that no appeal had been filed by the defendant-appellant before the lower appellate Court challenging the decree relating to rate of rent and since that decree had become final, this Court while putting parties toterms and while granting discretionary ad interim relief completely failed to notice the aforesaid fact. ( 11 ) I would not like to blame only the learned counsel for the parties for the error which has crept in my order. But it also appears to me to be an accidental slip or omission on my part and I failed to notice the essential fact that the decree for rent had become final and while putting the parties to terms, I by mistake due to accidental slip or omission failed to notice it. Another mistake which I committed was that on terms of this order, I have, in fact, varied the money decree which had been passed in favour of respondent, Prem Raj. The money decree was at the rate of Rs. 250. 00 per month for the period Jan. . 1978 to August, 1978. Surely, this could not have been my intention. It is settled practice of this Court that money decrees are seldom stayed during pendency of appeal and here I had even varied it before decision of the appeal when there was no appeal against it. To my mind, it is a case of accidental slip or omission on the part of this Court within the meaning of S. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 12 ) THERE is also another way of looking at it. I had given liberty to the parties to apply. When such a liberty is given, liberty is always for supplying for variation. Normally, such a liberty is given due to change of circumstances and/or subsequent events. However, the liberty which was given to the parties to apply was without any restriction and such a liberty would cover also a case of clerical or arithmetical mistake and/or accidental slip or omission and/or any other mistake. There is no period of limitation for a party to exercise the liberty which may be there if the parties apply for review. I would accordingly amend my aforesaid order dated 28th April, 1983 and direct that the ad interim order d/- 24th March 1983, is made absolute on the condition that the appellant deposits arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 80. 00 per month for the period from 1st March, 1977 to 31st Dec. 1977 and for the period from 1st Jan. , 1978 up to date i. e. up to 30-6-85 at the rate of Rs. 250. 80. 00 per month for the period from 1st March, 1977 to 31st Dec. 1977 and for the period from 1st Jan. , 1978 up to date i. e. up to 30-6-85 at the rate of Rs. 250. 00 per month by 12th July, 1985 in the trial Court. The respondent has not only the right to withdraw whatever amount already deposited but also to withdraw the sum which may be deposited in pursuance of the order being passed today. It is, however, made clear that the appellant will be entitled to adjust the amount, if any, which he had already deposited in the trial Court. The appellant is further directed to deposit the future rent month by month in the trial Court by 15th of the subsequent month at the rate of Rs. 250. 00 per month. It is also made clear that if the appellant fails to deposit the arrears of rent as directed, the ad interim order will stand vacated. Parties are at liberty to apply. There will be no order as to costs of the present proceedings. ( 13 ) CM is disposed of accordingly.