JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the order dated May 28, 1988 passed by the Additional District Judge. Sikar whereby the defendant-non-applicants' applications under Section 151, 152 C.P.C. and another under Section 47 C P.C. were allowed and the final decree for partition passed on November 15, 1980 was set aside and it was directed that the suit will be restored to its original number and fresh proceedings for passing final decree shall be initiated. The matter has a chequered history. In a suit for partition preliminary decree was passed by this court on July 23, 1973. In the judgment this court mode an observation that which party spent money in constructing the have items No. 2 and 3. is a matter which would be gone into by the trial court at the time of final decree. If the defendants have built up the properties and the plaintiff has not made any contribution then the court shall have due regard to it in apportioning the shares of the property of the joint property. The point was left out and this Court expressed no opinion on the evidence as to who had incurred the expenses or made the contribution in constructing the houses No. 2 and 3. A Special Appeal was taken against the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in the Special Appeal the trial Court was first restrained from passing the final decree on December 17, 1974 but that order was modified in Special Appeal on September 5, 1980. The restraint order was withdrawn and it was ordered that the trial Court is not restrained from preparation of the final decree and the record be sent to the trial court for preparation of final decree. When the record was received by the trial Court parties were present through their counsel. On September 30, 1980 it was recorded in the presence of the counsel for the defendants that the Commissioner has already submitted his report and October 12, 1980 was fixed for argument relating to the further proceedings in the suit. The case was not taken up on October 10, 1980 and was taken on October 14, 1980. On that date learned counsel for the respondents moved an application seeking time for filing objections against the report of the Commissioner. Time was allowed and October 31, 1980 was fixed. The case was not taken up on October 10, 1980 and was taken on October 14, 1980. On that date learned counsel for the respondents moved an application seeking time for filing objections against the report of the Commissioner. Time was allowed and October 31, 1980 was fixed. Further time was allowed on that date as well as on November 10, 1980. On November 12, 1980 it was recorded that objections have not been filed and the respondents' counsel moved an application pleading no instructions. The case then proceeded for arguments relating to final decree and for examining the report of Commissioner. On the next date i. e. on November 15, 1980 final decree was passed. 2. An application for setting aside the final decree was moved but the same was rejected by the trial Court on January 13, 1982. An appeal was preferred against that order refusing to set aside ex parte decree. The defendants were unsuccessful in the appeal as well which was dismissed on February 14, 1983. This court observed that the parties were contesting the original suit moreover the Commissioner's report has been filed after the Commissioner went on the spot and gave his report. In the very nature of these developments it was for the defendants to have filed objections immediately after the report of the Commissioner was filed. It is true that the proceedings were stayed by the High Court on the request of the defendants. But on account of that it cannot be said that the defendants can afford to sleep over their rights and while their counsel appeared on successive hearings one after the other and ultimately pleaded no instructions they cannot be allowed to challenge the final decree which has been passed after a long battle of 15 years. 3. It may also be stated that the Special Appeal filed against the judgment of this Court dated July 23, 1973 was also dismissed on October 9, 1985. The Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against that judgment was also dismissed on February 10, 1986. 4. Having unsuccessful in all subsequent stages from July 23, 1973 it appears that the defendants have submitted an application before the trial court for setting aside the final decree in the form of making a prayer for rectification of an error which is said to have been crept in passing the final decree. 4. Having unsuccessful in all subsequent stages from July 23, 1973 it appears that the defendants have submitted an application before the trial court for setting aside the final decree in the form of making a prayer for rectification of an error which is said to have been crept in passing the final decree. This attempt has been made on the original side in the form of application under Sections 151 & 152 C.P.C. and on the execution side under Section 47 C.P.C. The learned Additional District Judge was of the view that the observations made by this Court in its judgment dated July 23, 1973 has not been followed and as such in disregard of these observations a wrong decree has been passed and as such that deserves to be set aside and he accordingly set aside the decree. Dissatisfied with the order of the Additional District Judge this revision has been preferred. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the applications were absolutely misconceived. No mistake or error had crept in warranting correction in the form of setting aside the final decree for partition. Opportunity was afforded to the defendants. The defendants failed to avail the opportunity. No objections were filed against the report of the Commissioner and as such it was not incumbent on the trial court to suo motu examine the case as to who had spent the money in constructing the havelies items Nos. 2 and 3. The defendants were well aware of commissioner's report and it was their duty to have filed objections and it was their duty to have established the case that money was spent by them in constructing the two havelies and on that basis apportionment of the havelies could have taken place settling the equities of the parties on that basis. The finality which has been attained by the final decree cannot be disturbed by any such move by the defendants and the trial Court erred in allowing the applications. 7. Shri R.M. Lodha learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the presence of the defendants is of no consequence. The finality which has been attained by the final decree cannot be disturbed by any such move by the defendants and the trial Court erred in allowing the applications. 7. Shri R.M. Lodha learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the presence of the defendants is of no consequence. It was the duty of the trial Court to apply its mind on the observations which were made by this court in its judgment dated July 23, 1973 and no final decree could have been passed by the trial Court without taking into consideration the observations made by this court. 8. He referred to (1) Bishnu Charan Das v. Dhani Biswal and another AIR 1977 Orissa 68 . It is laid down in this decision that the decree has to be in conformity with the judgment and in case it is not in harmony with judgment the court has no alternative but to rectify the mistake which has been committed. There is no dispute with regard to this principle but what is to be seen is that whether the final decree for partition which has been passed has been rightly passed or not. There is no question of decree being not in conformity with the judgment in this case. 9. He next cited (2) Muthangi Ayyana v. Motbangi Jaggarao and others AIR 1977 SC 292 . It has been held in this case that final decree cannot go behind the preliminary decree on a matter determined by a preliminary decree. This authority toy has no application. The question was left open for decision by the trial Court by this court with regard to investment of money in constructing the havelies Nos. 2 and 3 and thereafter parties were required to establish their case but the defendants chose to remain absent and no objections were filed against the report of the commissioner and therefore the trial court proceeded on this basis 10. Reference has also been made by Mr. R.M. Lodha to a decision of Karnataka High Court in (3) Kariyanna v. Isthuri Subbaiabesstty and others : AIR 1981 Karnataka 234 . This authority has also laid down that the executing court has jurisdiction and power to correct its own mistake if it factually found that there was a mistake in any order made by it. R.M. Lodha to a decision of Karnataka High Court in (3) Kariyanna v. Isthuri Subbaiabesstty and others : AIR 1981 Karnataka 234 . This authority has also laid down that the executing court has jurisdiction and power to correct its own mistake if it factually found that there was a mistake in any order made by it. The court is bound to correct its own mistake when once the same is brought to its notice and it would be failing in its duty if it does not do so and sticks to its previous order as if it is infallible. A obtained a decree in respect of his half share in the suit properties against B. In his execution petition he prayed for appointment of a receiver in respect of properties mentioned in the schedule attached to the petition. The executing court passed an order directing the receiver to take possession of the aforesaid property inspire of objection by B that those properties included properties for which there was no decree. This authority too has no application to the facts of the present case. 11. The last authority which has been cited by Mr. Lodha is (4) Bhavan Vaja and others v. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang and another ; AIR 1972 SC 1371 . In this case their lordships of the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 47 C.P C. with regard to construction of decree and it was observed that for construing a decree it can and in appropriate cases it ought to take into consideration the pleadings as well as the proceedings leading upto the decree. In order to find out the meaning of the words employed in a decree the court often has to ascertain the circumstances under which these words came to be used. That is the plain duty of the executing court and if that court fails to discharge that duty it would be deemed to have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. 12. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and in my opinion the applications under Sections 151 & 152 and Section 47 C P C. in the present case are absolutely misconceived. This court no doubt left the question as to who spent the money in constructing the two have lies for the trial Court. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and in my opinion the applications under Sections 151 & 152 and Section 47 C P C. in the present case are absolutely misconceived. This court no doubt left the question as to who spent the money in constructing the two have lies for the trial Court. When the matter went back to the trial Court the trial Court proceeded on the basis of the report of the commissioner and also on the basis giving opportunities to the parties as to what further proceedings were to be taken. It was categorically recorded by the trial Court what further proceedings have to take place arguments on that would be heard and for that. October 10 1980 was fixed in the present case in presence of the learned counsel for the defendants. There was ample opportunity available to the defendants to have pointed out to the court that evidence has already been led on the question as to who had spent the money in construction of the have lies and the have lies should fall to their share or on that basis equities should be adjusted in favour of the defendants but it appears that defendants took no interest despite opportunities having been given to the counsel for the defendants for filing the objections against the report of the commissioner and inviting arguments as to what further proceedings were to be taken. The defendants failed to submit any objection against the report of the commissioner and/or point out what further proceedings are to be taken by the court. In such a situation the court in my opinion was free to proceed as of the defendants have no case else the defendants would have filed objections pointing out to the court that money has been spent by them in construction of the have lies items Nos. 2 and 3. That apart having proceeded exparte exparte final decree has been passed such an exparte decree has become final more particularly When the application for setting aside exparte decree has been dismissed and the dismissal has been upheld by this court. 13. After having attained finality the remedy under Sections 151 152 and Section 47 C.P.C. is not available to the defendants and both the applications are misconceived. 13. After having attained finality the remedy under Sections 151 152 and Section 47 C.P.C. is not available to the defendants and both the applications are misconceived. No such ground has been made out on the basis of which these applications can be allowed. The orders of the trial court therefore deserve to be set aside. 14. Accordingly this revision is allowed and the order of the trial Court is set aside and the applications under Sections 151 152 and Section 47 C.P.C. are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Revision allowed. *******