Judgment :- 1. M/s. Syndicate Chit Fund Limited (Plaintiff) which got a money decree, but has no practical use of it since the plaintiff company is precluded from realising the amount decreed on account of want of necessary operative words in the judgment. The petition for amending the judgment was dismissed and hence this revision petition. 2. The plaintiff company filed a suit for realisation of Rs. 1,360/- based on Ext. Al which is a bond executed by one Krishnan and two sureties (defendants 1 and 2) for repayment of the defaulted instalments of a Kuri. Krishnan died and his legal representatives were made defendants in the suit. The trial court found that the plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed in the suit. The court allowed the plaintiff to proceed against the property left behind by the said Krishnan and also against the assets of defendants 1 and 2. The operative portion of the judgment is worded thus: "In the result the suit is decreed as indicated above with costs of the plaintiff". A decree was prepared in line with the said judgment. The plaintiff found it difficult to execute the said decree as it does not allow him to realise the plaint amount from the defendants. It is not necessary now to consider whether the plaintiffs are entitled to realise the amount even on the strength of the words now embodied in the judgment and decree. 3. As the judgment and the decree did not contain words necessary to allow the plaintiff to realise the plaint amount with costs and interests, from the defendants and properties mentioned above, the plaintiff filed an interlocutory application, under S.152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') before the trial court for amendment of the judgment. The short order by which the lower court dismissed the aforesaid interlocutory application reads thus: "The prayer in this application is to amend the decree and judgment by incorporating the fact that the petitioner has been allowed to realise the plaint amount and interest from the defendants. Bat in the judgment there is no mention about the recovery of plaint amount from (be defendants. Under S.152 clerical or arithmetical errors or mistakes alone can be rectified. I find that the proposed amendment will not come within the purview of S.152 CPC. Hence this application is dismissed without costs". 4. Bat in the judgment there is no mention about the recovery of plaint amount from (be defendants. Under S.152 clerical or arithmetical errors or mistakes alone can be rectified. I find that the proposed amendment will not come within the purview of S.152 CPC. Hence this application is dismissed without costs". 4. Learned Munsiff was obviously under an erroneous impression that S.152 of the Code permits only correction of clerical or arithmetical errors in judgments or decrees. Of course, such mistakes are also liable to be corrected by virtue of the powers under that Section. But the provision permits correction of something more than that. The said Section is extracted below: "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". Four categories are mentioned in the Section which call for invocation of powers therein. (1) Clerical mistakes; (2) arithmetical mistakes; (3) errors arising from accidental slips; (4) errors arising from accidental omissions. The provision can be invoked if any one of them exists. It cannot be understood that if there is no clerical or arithmetical mistake, the judgment is not liable to be amended for any reason whatsoever. The object of the Section is to preserve substantial justice from being submerged in the bog of technical hurdles. It enables the court to change or vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. It helps to minimise litigation and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is not merely the power vested in court, but it casts a duty on the court that such amendments must be made in order to give effect to the true meaning and intention of the judgment. It is based on the principle that the act of the court shall not prejudice any party. That is precisely the reason for empowering the court to make such corrections even without an application from any party aggrieved. The words "either on its own motion" reflect the legislative concern to remind the court of its duty to do the needful when a situation warrants it, even if there is no application from any person to make such corrections. The power to amend judgments or decrees is intended for promotion of justice. The words "either on its own motion" reflect the legislative concern to remind the court of its duty to do the needful when a situation warrants it, even if there is no application from any person to make such corrections. The power to amend judgments or decrees is intended for promotion of justice. Hence such power must be exercised very liberally whenever such amendments become necessary to promote the cause of justice and to save the parties from the ordeals of a separate litigation for such reliefs. 5. In Bishnu Charan Das v. Dhani Biswal (AIR 1977 Orissa 68) a single judge of the Orissa High Court has observed that the Section is based on two principles, the first is that the act of the court shall prejudice no party and the second is that there is a duty for the court to see that its records are true and represent the correct state of affairs. The learned judge was in favour of giving a very liberal application of the provision. In Rajeshwari Singh v. Lakhrajo Kumar (AIR. 1984 Patna 354) the Patna High Court held that the provision is in wide terms conferring power upon court to minimise litigation and avoid multiplicity of proceedings and further to see that technicalities may not he allowed to stand in the way of substantial justice. The same view is held by the Madras High Court in Abdul Kader v. Chinnaswamy Padayachi (AIR. 1980 Madras 116). The above decisions are in support of the liberal application of S.152 of the Code in deserving situations. 6. Learned munsiff has gone wrong, in that, he narrowed down the scope of S.152 of the Code. An error arising from any omission requires correction by the court at any time when the attention of the court is brought to such an error. A reading of the judgment in this case abundantly shows that the court unmistakably wanted to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff allowing him to realise the plaint amount with interest and cost from defendants I and 2 and also from the properties mentioned in Para.9 of the judgment. The absence of necessary words in the judgment made its corresponding reflection in the decree also and its consequence rendered the decree practically unenforceable in execution. The decree-holder was thus constrained to move the court for addition of necessary words in the judgment. The absence of necessary words in the judgment made its corresponding reflection in the decree also and its consequence rendered the decree practically unenforceable in execution. The decree-holder was thus constrained to move the court for addition of necessary words in the judgment. The court below ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under S.152 of the Code. I find failure in exercise of such jurisdiction. In the result, I allow this revision and set aside the impugned order. I. A. No 3104/84 filed by the plaintiff in the lower court stands allowed. The decree shall also be amended is accordance with the corrected judgment. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.