Judgment :- 1. The petitioner filed O.S.No. 52 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem. The suit was decreed as prayed for on 16. 1984, as the defendants remained ex parte. At the time of filing the petition for final decree, it was found out that by mistake it was prayed in the plaint that preliminary and final decree should be passed, though the suit is only for recovery of money. So, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 115 of 1988 under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to rectify the mistake by amending the decree, as the suit is only for recovery of money. The said petition was dismissed by the court below in its order dated 110. 1990. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the”above revision. 2. In the plaint filed in the above suit, the plaintiff has prayed as follows:- “Therefore, the plaintiff humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a decree and judgment against the defendant for the suit claim with subsequent interest at contract rate and costs and make suitable provisions for the passing of a final decree if need be, directing the defendants to pay the amount within a stipulated time, and in case if they fail to make payment to make provision for the sale of the hypothecated property, in case the sale proceeds are not sufficient to meet the decree amount, to pass a personal decree against the defendants 2 to 6 for the balance of amount realisable, grant costs of suit and grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice”. The prayer proceeds on the basis that as if the suit is on a mortgage. Order 34, of the Code deals with mortgage suits. Admittedly, in the present case, no immovable property is involved. The hypothecation deed filed along with the plaint is only with respect to movable properties. Even the court-fee is paid only under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act and not under Section 33 of the Act, which relates to mortgage suits. A reading of the plaint would show that the claim of the plaintiff is only on the loan amount and not to exercise any right on the alleged mortgaged properties. A reading of the plaint would show that the claim of the plaintiff is only on the loan amount and not to exercise any right on the alleged mortgaged properties. Unfortunately, in the prayer, it is prayed to pass a preliminary and final decree as if the plaintiff wants to sell the hypothecated properties. Even assuming that the plaintiff wants to exercise rights in the hypothecation deed, admittedly, such properties are movable an it cannot be construed that the suit filed is under Order 34 of the Code. Moreover, even in the plaint itself it is specifically stated that the first defendant is not carrying on any activity and trade and the plaintiffs officials did not find the stock-in-trade to cover the security offered for the loan. So, it is very clear that the suit is not on the basis of hypothecation and it is only on the basis that the defendants failed to repay the money due to the plaintiff. That is why the court-fee was also paid under Section 22 of the said Act. On the basis of the above, now we have to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to have the mistake corrected so as to enable the plaintiff to recover the money from the defendant. 3. It is not in dispute that the court below has found that the amount claimed by the plaintiff is due from the defendants and that finding has become final. In the present case, there being no ambiguity as to the subject matter of the suit, the court should have exercised its jurisdiction by allowing necessary amendments. By doing so, the defendants would not in any way be prejudiced or would not suffer any injury. But, on the other hand, the plaintiff will have to suffer great prejudice and injury. It is also settled where justa falsa-demonstratio in regard to the subject matter of the litigation and it has not lead to any confusion or mistake in the minds of the other party and has not affected the merits of the decision, Section 152 of the Code can certainly be invoked. 4. If any authority is required, the same is found in number of decision which are set out hereunder. 5. In Katamraju v. Paripurnandam , A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 4. If any authority is required, the same is found in number of decision which are set out hereunder. 5. In Katamraju v. Paripurnandam , A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 289, Rajamannar, Officiating Chief Justice, as he then was, has held as follows:- “What is now sought in this application is not an amendment of the pleadings as such; it is really an application to correct an error which has crept also into the decrees. The wide language of Ss. 152 and 153, Civil P.C., would, in my opinion, cover a case like the present. The correction of an error need not always amount to an amendment of a pleading. I do not think it correct to treat this application as an application under 0.6, R.17. The passage cited by the learned advocate for the respondent from Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol.26, at p.56 namely, ‘An amendment may be allowed at any stage of the proceedings even after trial but not after judgment, except on appeal’ evidently refers to a material and substantial amendment of the pleading. At p.57 occurs the following statement of the law which is in terms identical with Ss. 152 and 153, Civil P.C. ‘The Court or a Judge may at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be thought just, amend any defect or error in any proceedings’. The Court or a Judge may also at any time correct clerical mistakes in judgments or orders or errors arising therein from accidental omissions”. 6. In Krishna Poduval v. Lakshmi Nathiar , A.I.R. 1950 Mad. 751 Krishnaswamy Nayudu, J., as he then was, while considering the possibility of amending the plaint and the decree passed exercising power under Section 152, has held as follows:- “Insofar as amendment is concerned it is only a correction of the survey numbers. There is no dispute as regards the identity of the property nor as regards the boundaries to it and there was no controversy at all at the time of the suit as to the identity of the property which has been the subject of the kanom deed. There is no dispute as regards the identity of the property nor as regards the boundaries to it and there was no controversy at all at the time of the suit as to the identity of the property which has been the subject of the kanom deed. It is only the errors as regards the survey numbers that have crept into the decree and the plaint that are sought to be amended and even before the Commissioner who was appointed to report as to the correct survey numbers as to the several properties which were the subject matter of the decree the parties were not at issue as regards item No. 4 in respect of which amendment is sough for. I do not think therefore that the amendment asked for goes to the root of the claim or an amendment is sought for in respect of any matter which has been a subject of controversy between the parties to the suit. It is only an amendment for correction of certain errors that have crept into the decree and in the plaint schedules which errors happen to be also in Ex.B.l. The fact that Ex.B.I also has the same errors as in the plaint schedule and in the schedule to the decree cannot disentitle the plaintiffs to have the errors set right if they are entitled to it under the provisions of the Code.” 7. The Apex Court has also had an occasion to consider the scope of Sections 151 and 152, in Samarendra v. Krishna Kumar , A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1440 wherein it has been held as follows:- “Now, it is well settled that there is an inherent power in the court which passed the judgment to correct a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission and to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. ‘Every court’, said Bowen L., J., in Mellor v. Swire , 1885 (3)0 Ch.D.289, ‘has inherent power over its own records so long as those records are within its power and that it can set right any mistake in them. ‘Every court’, said Bowen L., J., in Mellor v. Swire , 1885 (3)0 Ch.D.289, ‘has inherent power over its own records so long as those records are within its power and that it can set right any mistake in them. An order even when passed and entered may be amended by the Court so as to carry out its intention and express the meaning of the court when the order was made.’ In Janakirama Iyer v. Nilakanta Iyer , AIR 1962 SC 688 the decree as drawn up in the High Court had used the words ‘means profits’ instead of ‘net profits’. In fact the use of the words ‘means profits’ came to be made probably because while narrating the facts, these words were inadvertently used in the judgment. This court held that the use of the words ‘means profits’ in the context was obviously the result of inadvertence in view of the fact that the decree of the Trial Court had specifically used the words ‘net profits’ and therefore the decretal order drawn up in the High Court through mistake could be corrected under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code even after the High Court had granted certificate and appeals were admitted in this court before the date of the correction. It is true that under O.20, R.3 of the Code once a judgment is signed by the Judge it cannot be altered or added to but the rule expressly provides that a correction can be made under Section 152. The Rule does not also affect the court’s inherent power under Sec. 151. Under Section 152 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 on its own motion or on an application by any of the parties. It is thus manifest that errors arising from an accidental slip can be corrected subsequently not only in a decree drawn up by a ministerial officer of the court but even in a judgment pronounced and signed by the court” 8. In the abovesaid Apex Court decision, the suit filed by the mortgage was also for a foreclosure decree. The plaint did not contain a prayer for decree for sale or for a personal decree against the mortgagor. In the abovesaid Apex Court decision, the suit filed by the mortgage was also for a foreclosure decree. The plaint did not contain a prayer for decree for sale or for a personal decree against the mortgagor. Since the sale proceeds were found insufficient the trial court by oversight passed the preliminary decree for sale overlooking the fact that it was a suit for foreclosure and possession. The trial court also confirmed the same. That was sought to be corrected by filing a petition under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code. The Apex Court held that the trial court has power to correct its own error which had crept in the judgment and preliminary decree and passed final decree for foreclosure as intended by it. 9. The abovesaid decision of the Apex Court has been followed by AR. Lakshmanan, J., in Chinna Marudachalam and another v. Chinnaia Gounder , 1997 (I) CTC 584 1997 (1) L.W. 465 , wherein the learned Judge has held as follows:- “I am therefore of the opinion that the petition filed by the respondents herein/defendants under S.152, C.P.C. after the decree to correct the error is perfectly in order and the Courts are empowered to correct the mistake under Ss.151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An argument was advanced by Mr. Rajendran that under O.20, R.3 of the Code, once a judgment is signed by the Judge, it cannot be altered or added. In my opinion the above Rule expressly provides that a correction can be made under S.152, C.P.C. and the Rule does not also affect the Court’s inherent power under S. 151, C.P.C. Therefore, it is thus manifestly clear that the errors arising from an accidental slip can be corrected subsequently not only in a decree drawn up by a Ministerial Officer of the Court but even in a judgment pronounced and signed by the Court. It is well settled that the act of the Court should not prejudice any party and Courts have the duty to see that their records are true and represent the correct state of affairs. In orders to prevent the prejudice, Court can always exercise inherent powers. This Court (Sathiadev, J.) also held that there is no time limit for correcting clerical or arithmetical mistake under Ss. In orders to prevent the prejudice, Court can always exercise inherent powers. This Court (Sathiadev, J.) also held that there is no time limit for correcting clerical or arithmetical mistake under Ss. 151 and 152, C.P.C. The said opinion was expressed by the learned Judge in the judgment reported in V.R. Srinivasa Raghavan and others v. Kannammal/Alias by power agent N.C. Raja Gopal and others , 1980 T.L.N.J. 50” 10. The Apex Court went further and held in Manohar Lai v. N.B.M. Supply, Curgaon , AIR 1969 S.C. 1267 , that a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Apex Court has further held as follows: “The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponents which may not be compensed for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side”. The Apex Court in the said decision has further held that in the application for amendment of the plaint unless it is expressly averred that such error, omission or misdiscription is due to bona fide mistake, the Court has no power to grant or to amend the plaint, and such a power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations. .11. To promote justice and to maintain serenity in the court records, the court, exercising powers under Section 152 of the Code has to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. To support the abovesaid view, I seek aid of the decision in Bishnu Charan v. Dhani Biswal , AIR 1977 Ori. 68 , wherein it has been held as follows: .“Section 152 Civil P.C. is based on two important principles. The first of them is the maxim that an act of the Court shall prejudice no party and the other that the Courts have a duty to see that their records are true and that they represent the correct state of affairs. The first of them is the maxim that an act of the Court shall prejudice no party and the other that the Courts have a duty to see that their records are true and that they represent the correct state of affairs. In proceedings for amendment of a decree, the inquiry is continued only to seeing whether the decree correctly expresses what was really decided and intended by the Court. Order 20, Rule 6 clearly provides that the decree shall agree with the judgment. If the decree is not in harmony with the judgment the Court has no alternative but to rectify the mistake which has been committed. As the power to amend is exercised for the promotion of justice, it should be exercised liberally so as to make the decree conform to the judgment on which it is founded. I am fortified in this view by an earlier decision of this Court reported in Sagua Barik v. Bichinta Barik , AIR 1966 Ori. 225 wherein it was held on a review of the authorities that if the decree is not in conformity with the judgment Sections 152 and 151 to bring it in line with the judgment and that in exercising the power under Sections 151 and 152 the Court merely corrects the mistake of its ministerial officer by whom the decree was drawn up” 12. The only limitation to exercise such power is that it should not prejudice the other side and the third parties who have acquired right under the erroneous decree for valuable consideration and ignorance of the error of the decree. In the present case, there is no such hurdle to the Court to exercise the power under Section 152 of the Code. .13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the plaintiff has filed the hypothecation deed as document No. 3 and the plaintiff has not given any details of the movables as contemplated under Order 1, Rule 31 of the Code, and in view of the deliberate mistake committed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to rectify its own mistake. I am not able to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. The plaint proceeds only on the basis of loan amount. Merely because hypothecation deed has been produced, it cannot be said that it is a suit on mortgage. I am not able to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. The plaint proceeds only on the basis of loan amount. Merely because hypothecation deed has been produced, it cannot be said that it is a suit on mortgage. Only in the suit on mortgage, there would be preliminary and final decree. While reading the plaint cumulatively, it cannot be said that it is a suit on mortgage. Because of the bona fide mistake committed by a counsel while drafting the prayer, the plaintiff cannot be sent back without any relief, especially when the court below has found that the defendants are liable to pay the said amount, and decree having been granted on that basis. Even if the objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that Sections 151, 152, 153 of the Code cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, this Court can exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the interest of justice, to amend the decree. Though the same has to be invoked sparingly, in the present case, that power has to be exercised. Similar view has been taken by Srinivasan, J., as he then was, in Annapoorni v. Janaki , 1995 (1) L.W. 141 and by S.S. Subramani, J., in the Varada Reddiar & Another v. V. Jayachandran , etc., 1996 (II) CTC 611 : 1996 (1) L.W. 559 . 14. In view of the above discussion and the decisions, I find that the request of the petitioner/ plaintiff is justified. Hence, the order of the court below is set aside and the court below is directed to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint as if it is a suit for money and make consequential amendments in the judgment and decree. With the above observation, this revision is allowed. No costs.