JUDGMENT : H.L. Agrawal, C.J. - The short question that falls for consideration in this revision u/s 115 of the CPC (for short 'the Code') is as to whether an order refusing to correct a mistake of law by atrial Court on a petition to make the correction under its inherent powers or u/s 152 of the Code is revisable by this Court'. ' 2. The Petitioner along with O. P. Nos. 2 to 5 had instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 88,113.80 on the basis of the promissory notes executed by o. P. No. 1 on different dates between 1974 and 1976 with pendente lite and future interest. The trial Court decreed the suit but passed on order regarding pendente lite interest in the judgment. 2. The Plaintiffs made an application' u/s 151 read with' Section 152 of the Code for allowing pendente lite interest on the plea that it was an error of the nature which could be corrected by the Court under its inherent powers or u/s 152 of the Code. The trial Court by the impugned order took the view that such an error could not be corrected under these provisions. A revision has therefore, been taken to this Court. 3. It is well settled that where the decree does not provide for interest, it will be deemed to have been refused unless it can be shown that the silence was due to oversight or mistake. Refusal in law to grant a relief would not amount to an accidental slip or omission which could be corrected either under its inherent powers of the Court of u/s .152 of the Code, The refusal to grant interest being a matter on merits of the judgment and decree, the relief can be given only by the appellate Court and not by the revisional Court. It is not a case where the trial Court has committed an .error of law in the mode or manner prescribed for exercise of the jurisdiction which could attract Sub-section (1) (c) of Section 115 of the Code. A decision which is erroneous in law having been reached in proper exercise of jurisdiction will not fall within the ambit of Section 115. This proposition is well founded and has stood the test of time. A decision which is erroneous in law having been reached in proper exercise of jurisdiction will not fall within the ambit of Section 115. This proposition is well founded and has stood the test of time. Way back in the case of Balakrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Iyer the Judicial Committee observed as follows: The section applies to jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise or the non-exercise of it or the illegal assumption of it. The section is not directed against conclusions of law or fact .in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved." This observation has been approved by the Supreme Court on several occasions. See D.L.F. Housing and Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh and Ors.. The Petitioner has not come to this Court against the main. judgment refusing to grant pendente lite interest but, has challenged, only the correctness of the order refusing to make correction in the judgment. In my opinion the trial Court has taken a correct view in the matter and there being no error of jurisdiction amenable to revisional jurisdiction this application must fail and is dismissed, but in the circumstances without any costs. Final Result : Dismissed