This is plaintiff/decree holder's revision against the order dated 5.8.81 passed by the learned Munsiff, Jorhat dismissing the petitioner's application for amendment of the decree in T.S. No. 2 of 1978. 2. The petitioner had filed the suit which was Title Suit No. 2/78 for ejectment of the opposite party who was defendant in the suit, from a piece of land which was described by boundaries and area in the plaint. The suit was decreed on 15.9.78. The petitioner decree holder was delivered possession of 5 lechas of land in Title Execution Case No. 15/79, but it was found that the opposite party was actually in possession of 15 lechas of land. The opposite party was not evicted from the remaining portion of the land. The petitioner applied for amendment of the decree under sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereafter the Code, by an application dated 11.3.80 in which area of land was stated to be 10 lechas and by another application dated 27.2.81 in which the area was stated to be 15 lechas. The petitioner's submission was that by mistake the area of the land was stated as 5 lechas in the plaint and the same mistake was repeated in the decree, that the mistake being clerical should be corrected. The learned Munsiff, according to the petitioner, without making enquiry into the petitioner's submission, dismissed the petition by order dated 5.8,81, 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come in revision, and Shri P. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that there was clearly mistake in the plaint and consequently also in the decree, and the learned Court below ought to have considered the matter after giving the parties opportunity to establish their respective submissions and not just dismissed the petition as was done by the impugned order. Shri Baruah has urged that the matter should be sent back to the Court below for fresh decision in accordance with law. 4. Shri D. Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, has submitted that the decree had been prepared on the basis of the description of the land in the plaint and there was no mistake which could be corrected, as submitted by the petitioner. 4. Shri D. Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, has submitted that the decree had been prepared on the basis of the description of the land in the plaint and there was no mistake which could be corrected, as submitted by the petitioner. Shri Goswami has also submitted that in the application filed by the petitioner for amendment, it was stated that the land in possession of the opposite party was 10 lechas, and in another application, it was stated to be 15 lechas, and all these could not be considered to be a clerical mistake and hence the impugned order was justified and the petitions were rightly rejected. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and considered the respective submissions. 6. The facts are that the petitioner has a plot of land measuring 3 kathas 8 lechas. The opposite party was petitioner's employee and was permitted to stay on the land where he had made a house. The petitioner came to know that the opposite party had made another house on the said land and since the petitioner also needed land for his own use, had filed the suit for ejectment. In the plaint, area of the land in occupation of the opposite party was described as 5 lechas and its boundary description is as under : East - Plaintiff's land of the patta. West - Barbed wire fencing of the plaintiff on western boundary. North - Plaintiff's land of the patta and South - Road. The petitioner's contention is that the area of the land in occupation of the opposite party was 15 lechas, but by clerical mistake it was stated as 5 lechas in the plaint and hence the application for amendment should have been considered and allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the fact that the petitioner in an application had also stated that the area of the land was 10 lechas would not in any manner disprove the petitioner's contention that it was a mistake. The learned Court below had rejected the application by the impugned order, the relevant part of which runs as under : "It is apparent the decree holder/plaintiff came to know of the area of the suit land only at the time of the Ex. The learned Court below had rejected the application by the impugned order, the relevant part of which runs as under : "It is apparent the decree holder/plaintiff came to know of the area of the suit land only at the time of the Ex. cases and that at the time of delivery of possession and hence it cannot be said that it was clerical or arithmetical mistakes or in the decree or it was an accidental slip or omission. Further, if the amendment is allowed then the decree holder/plaintiff will get a larger relief than the relief already claimed in the original suit, which cannot be allowed. Moreover, from the circumstances of the case I am constrained to observe that there is a serious laches on the part of the decree holder/plaintiff. I also observe, after satisfaction of the decree amendment by way of correcting the description of the property completely altering the plaint and the decree should be allowed. Hence, I dismiss both the petition for amendment of the decree etc." Sections 152 and 153 of the Code read as under : "Section !52 Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders-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 of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. Section 153 General power to amend-The Court may at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit ; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding". It may be clear from the provisions of section 152 above that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may be corrected. 7. Considering that the petitioner had filed suit for ejectment of the opposite party it may be reasonable to think that the petitioner wanted to eject the opposite party from the entire land in latter's possession. 7. Considering that the petitioner had filed suit for ejectment of the opposite party it may be reasonable to think that the petitioner wanted to eject the opposite party from the entire land in latter's possession. Moreover, the description of the land in the plaint does appear to suggest that the petitioner had intended to eject the opposite party from the entire land in his occupation and not from only a portion of it, for it was stated that there was plaintiff's own land of the patta, on the east and north. On the remaining sides were the boundary fencing and the road. In the circumstances, it appears that the petitioner had raised a substantial question which should have been heard and considered on merits. 8. It is true that the petitioner had in the earlier applications stated that the land in possession of the opposite party was 10 lechas, and in another application it was stated to be 15 lechas. While it may be said that there was some negligence but any error by accidental slip or omission or clerical mistake is also not without an element of negligence. The fact therefore that there was some element of negligence does not in my opinion mean that there could be no clerical mistake or that the error could be no clerical mistake or that the error could not be due to accidental slip or omission in the preparation of the plaint and consequently in the decree or in the application for amendment. In any case, the probability that it can be a clerical mistake or an error due to accidental slip or omission in my opinion cannot be and should not be excluded or ruled out. 9. Shri Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that where there was inconsistency between the boundary description and the area the boundary description prevails. I am inclined to agree with Shri Baruah that on the facts and circumstances of this case the question whether or not there was a mistake should be considered on the basis of the boundary description of the land in suit. 10. It is also true that in this case the mistake in description of the area was in plaint, but at this stage after the passing of the decree question of amendment of the plaint should not arise. 10. It is also true that in this case the mistake in description of the area was in plaint, but at this stage after the passing of the decree question of amendment of the plaint should not arise. I however see no reason why the mistake cannot or should not be corrected. In Shahzad Khan vs. Pt. Sheo Kumar, AIR 1957 Allahabad 133, it was held that under section 152, it is open to the appellate Court to correct mistakes and do justice in the case. The Court can under that section amend a clerical error in a decree although the error may have occurred on account of a mistake of the parties themselves in their pleadings and this mistake in the decree was on account of its being copied from the plaint. In such cases it is not necessary to amend the plaint itself. It is enough to amend the decree. In Shiam Lai vs. Mt Moona Kuar, AIR 1934 Oudh 352, it was held that mistake repeated in the plaint, judgment and decree can be corrected in exercise of the powers under sections 151 and 152 of the CPC. It was also held that where an application for such an amendment was refused the plaintiff is entitled to ask the High Court in exercise of the powers under section 115 CPC, to set aside refusal. In Narkulla Venkayya vs. N. Satyanarayana, AIR 1959 Andhra Pradesh 360, it was held that in appropriate cases where mistakes have arisen by reason of inadvertence in entering wrong survey number in the plaint, the Court has ample powers under section 152 to correct such mistakes which have crept into the judgment and decree. But this power can be exercised by the Court passing the decree. If the trial Court's decree has been superseded by the appellate Court's decree or has merged into the same, it is only the appellate Court and not the trial Court which can rectify the mistake. In Appat Krishna Poduval vs. Lakshmi Nathiar, AIR 1950 Madras 751, it was held that where an application is filed for correction of an error as regards the survey, numbers of an item of property in the plaint schedule and the decree schedule and there is no dispute as regards the identity of the property or boundaries to it, the amendment may be allowed under sec. 152. 152. The fact that the assignment deed of the property also has the same errors cannot disentitle the applicants to have the errors set right if they are entitled to it under the Code. In Aziz Ullah Khan vs. Court of Wards, AIR 1932 Allahabad 587, it was held that the language of section 152 was wide enough to cover the correction of mistakes made by the parties themselves. It was also held that the power of the Court to make corrections necessary for the ends of justice are not confined only to powers exercisable under section 152, but extensive powers can be exercised under sections 151 and 153. 11. It should thus be clear that if it is necessary for the ends of justice there is power available to the Court to correct clerical mistake under section 152 of the Code and if necessary also under section 151 and 153 of the Code. I therefore think that the petitioner's con­tention that there was clerical mistake or error due to accidental slip in the decree should be considered afresh by the Court below. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained and should be set aside. 12. In view of the above, this petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Court below for fresh consideration and decision of the petitioner's application for amendment of the decree in accordance with law. No costs. The parties to appear before the Court below on 22.8.88. The records be transmitted immediately.