This is an application under section 482, CrPC for review of the judgment dated 7. 9. 89 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No 416/86. 2. The facts giving rise to this application, shortly stated, are thus. On 23 November 1981, the Executive Magistrate Hojai passed an order under section 145, CrPC deciding that the first party was in possession of the disputed land. Being aggrieved by the order, the second party filed a revision application in the Court of Session Nagaon. The Sessions Judge affirmed the order of the Magistrate. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No 416 of 1986 in this Court under section 482, CrPC. This Court by an order dated 7 September 1989 dismissed the petition. 3. Mr. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgment of the Court requires review on the following grounds. The judgment is in the name of Elias Mia (since deceased) although his legal representatives were made parties. The area of the land involved in the civil suit measures 4K.-14 L and that involved in the proceeding under section 145 measures 8 B-2 k-13 L but this Court has given findings that the subject matter of the proceeding under section 145 and that of the civil suit are substantially the same. Therefore, there are errors on the face of the recocds. Mr S. N. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the opposite party, has contended that the review petition is (sic, not) maintainable in view of section 362, CrPC. 4. The question which arises for consideration is whether the judgment of this Court can be reviewed by exercising its power under section 482, CrPC. Section 362 CrPC provides : "Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.” 5. In State of Orissa vs. Ram Chander, AIR 1979 SC 87 , the Supreme Court has held that once a judgment has been pronounced by the High Court either in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment as there is no provision in the Code which would enable the High Court to review the same or exercise revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has further held that the provision of old section 561 A, CrPC (482 new) cannot be invoked for exercise of power which is specifically prohibitied by section 362, CrPC. This decision has been followed by Supreme Court in the following case- State of Rajas than vs. Gurucharan Das, AIR 1979 SC 1895 and Sooraj Devi vs Pyare Lal. AIR 1981 SC 736 . 6. Turning to the present case, this Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction under section 482, CrPC. The petitio­ner has filed the application for review of judgment under section 482, CrPC. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases cited above, I am of the opinion that the present review petition cannot be entertained except for correction of clerical or arithmetical error, if any. 7. In Sooraj Devi's case the Supreme Court has, as regards the clerical and arithmetical error, held : “……..A clerical or arithmetical error is an error occasioned by an accidental slip or omission of the Court. It represents that which the court never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its discovery on argument or disputation. An arithmetical error is a mistake of calculation, and a clerical error is mistake in writing or typing. Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs. State of Orissa (1966) 3 SCR 99 (AIR 1965 SC 1047). 8. Keeping the above principle in view, let me now examine if there is any clerical or arithmetical error. In the cause title of the judgment the name of Elias Mia (since deceased) has been shown as the petitioner. By an order of this Court, the legal representatives of the deceased were made parties. Therefore, it is typing mistake and it requires correction. In respect of the second contention of Mr. In the cause title of the judgment the name of Elias Mia (since deceased) has been shown as the petitioner. By an order of this Court, the legal representatives of the deceased were made parties. Therefore, it is typing mistake and it requires correction. In respect of the second contention of Mr. Gogoi that this Court has held that the subject matter of the dispute under section 145, CrPC and that of the civil suit are substantially same, although the area of the land involved in civil suit measures 8B - 2 K - 12 L and that involved in the proceeding under section 145, CrPC measures 0 B-4 K-14 L. Even if it is assumed that it is an arithmetical error while calculating the area, it cannot be a ground for review for the reasons that it would not affect the decision of this Court as this Court exercised its power under section 482 on various other reasons. For the reasons stated above, the petition is liable to be dismissed. However it is made clear that in future dispute, if any, the finding regarding area of the laud in dispute shall be of no consequence, if the rights of the parties are well founded. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed, with the direction that the office shall correct the cause title of the judgment. Interim order stands vacated.