ORDER T.N. Singh, J. 1. The order impugned is dated 20-9-1989 passed by learned District Judge, Shivpuri, rejecting an application made Under Section 152, Civil Procedure Code. The applicant has petitioned this Court Under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the order rejecting his contention that the decree ought to have to be corrected as there was an accidental slip due to which the counsel's fee was typed as Rs. 500/-. It is contended that the trial Court is supposed to act in accordance with law and counsel's fee is supposed to be fixed as Rs. 5,000/-, as contemplated under the law, the suit being valued at Rs. 5 Lakhs. Through mistake there was an accidental slip as a result of which only two zeros were typed after the figure 5' and third zero was missed. 2. Shri P. D. Agarwal, Panel Lawyer, has opposed seriously and vehemently the revisionist's plea, who is none else than Government Advocate, who had appeared for defendant, State of Madhya Pradesh, in Civil Suit No. 11-A of 1987. By judgment and decree dated 3-4-1989, the suit was decreed against the State with costs. However, Counsel's fee was typed in the judgment and also in the decree as "Rs. 500/-", resulting in denial of due and legal entitlement of the revisionist. In the judgment, which was passed by Shri R. S. Rathore, Distric Judge, Shivpuri, learned Judge stated as follows : ^^vfHkHkk"kd 'kqYd izekf.kr fd;s tkus ij 500@& :i;k ;k muds }kjk fn;s x;s izek.ki= ds vuqlkj tks Hkh de gks] Lohdkj fd;k tkos** A 3. The application of the revisionist, Government Advocate, Shri Madanlal Gupta (who had apparred in the suit) was heard by not Shri R. S. Rathore, but by Shri B. V. Bhargava, who was successor-in-office of Shri Rathore. He took the view that no case for correction of any mistake was made out because the Court had exercised its discretion in fixing the counsel's fee at Rs. 500/- and not at Rs. 5,000/- as contended. Shri J. P. Gupta, who .appears for the revisionist, has rightly submitted that the Court below had no jurisdiction to act on surmises and conjectures in taking the view that Shri Rathore had "deliberately fixed Rs. 500/- as counsel's fee". 500/- and not at Rs. 5,000/- as contended. Shri J. P. Gupta, who .appears for the revisionist, has rightly submitted that the Court below had no jurisdiction to act on surmises and conjectures in taking the view that Shri Rathore had "deliberately fixed Rs. 500/- as counsel's fee". He has submitted that no "circumstnaces" are at all referred to in the judgment in question dated 3-4-1989 as is clearly manifested in the aforementioned extract. He has submitted that it is a clear case of an accidental slip and of a typographical mistake because the Court passing the judgment and decree is supposed to act in accordance with law. 4. Shri Gupta has also assailed the interpretation of Rule 523 of the M. P. Civil Courts Rules, 1961 by the Court below. He has submitted that the focus is on the word "ordinarily" and that is missed. The Court below erred in law in attaching importance to the proviso, which as the settled law is, was an exception to the main enactment providing "fees ordinarily payable" to be calculated according to the scale prescribed. Clause (iv) of Rule 523 prescribes fees payable in respect of suits valued over Rs. 50,000/- by envisaging that upto that amount fees shall be paid at the rate of 2% of the valuation and on the remaining at the rate of 1% subject to maximum of Rs. 5,000/-. 5. I have no doubt that the proviso being an exception carried with it a mandate to the Courts passing the decree to state "circumstances" when lesser fee is awarded departing from the scale prescribed. Nothing is stated by the Court passing the decree in this case and as such it has to be assumed that the said Court did not exercise its discretion in terms of the proviso. 6. That apart, another contention of singular importance is pressed by Shri Gupta. During the course of his arguments he submitted a copy of the Gazette Notification dated 3-7-1974, which according to him, was issued by the Law Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. That is placed on record. According to that, State Counsel are to be paid fees on ad valorem basis and the scale prescribed and notified is upto valuation of Rs. 3 lacs against which fees payable is stated as Rs. 4,075/-. That is placed on record. According to that, State Counsel are to be paid fees on ad valorem basis and the scale prescribed and notified is upto valuation of Rs. 3 lacs against which fees payable is stated as Rs. 4,075/-. Shri Gupta has, therefore, submitted that the client having expressed its intention of payment of fees in a particular manner and having prescribed scale in that regard, which conformed to the statutory provisions contemplated Under Rule 523(iv), the Court passing the decree had no jurisdiction to deny arbitrarily counsel's entitlement in terms of the notification. That submission is also weighty and reasonable because it is a question of contract of payment of fees between client and his counsel. Such a contract can only be statutorily regulated. That is done evidently in the manner contemplated Under Rule 523. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons I have no doubt at all that the order impugned is not sustainable in law and that is quashed. It is necessary to do so because the revisionist will otherwise have no chance to secure his legal entitlement as, according to counsel, the judgment and decree dated 3-4-1989 is not appealed against. I direct that necessary correction shall be made, as prayed, in the decree. Counsel's fee, typed as "Rs. 500/-", shall be corrected to read "Rs. 5,000/-". The application is disposed of in terms of the said direction.