Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. This revision petition is filed against the order in I. A. 5692 of 1995 in O.S.1559 of 1992 of the Sub Court, Thrissur. The revision petitioners are the defendants. The suit was tiled by the plaintiff- Indian Bank - for recovery of Rs. 18,37,127/- with future interest on the above amount at 24.25% per annum with quarterly rests. Eventhough the defendants filed a written statement, finally they withdrew all their contentions and agreed for decreeing (he suit as prayed for. The suit was decreed on 22.6.1994. The plaintiff was allowed to recover Rs. 18,37,127/- with interest at "24.25% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. No appeal was filed against the above decree. Thereafter the plaintiff filed I. A. 5692 of 1995 invoking S.152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the decree and judgment to the effect that plaintiff will be entitled to realise from the defendants future interest on the decree amount as compounded at quarterly rests instead of annual rests as granted by the Court. This was objected to by the present petitioners. But, the Court below by the impugned order allowed the petition for amendment. It is against that the present C.R.P. is filed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that under S.34 of the CPC a discretion is conferred on the Court with regard to the grant of interest pendente lite and future interest. The Court has granted only 24.25% simple interest. It cannot he said to he an accidental error or omission. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank submitted that in the plaint the plaintiff has clearly stated that the contract rate is 24.25 % with quarterly rests. Further, in the plaint the Bank has prayed for 24.25%- per annum from the date of suit till date of realisation with quarterly rests. The defendants withdrew the contentions in the written statement and agreed for decreeing the suit as prayed for. The trial Court, as a matter of fact, chose 24.25% as interest, which was taken from the plaint. But, it omitted to give the further qualification that interest has to he at the quarterly rests. Counsel submitted that the intention of the Court was to grant interest as prayed for. But by some accidental error or omission, this was omitted by the Court. 4. But, it omitted to give the further qualification that interest has to he at the quarterly rests. Counsel submitted that the intention of the Court was to grant interest as prayed for. But by some accidental error or omission, this was omitted by the Court. 4. Both the sides argued the matter very elaborately and cited various decisions before me. But I do not think, it is necessary to refer to all the decisions. S.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the rate of interest that can be granted by the Court from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. According to the proviso to that section, if the liability has arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of interest may exceed 6%; per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest if there is any contract. In this case, there is no dispute the contractual rate of interest is 24.25% with quarterly rests. But, the Court granted only 24.25 % as a simple interest. The scope and ambit of S.152 of the CPC came up for consideration before His Lordship Mr. Justice Varghese Kalliath in the decision reported in Kiiruvilla v. State Bank of Travancore, AIR 1989 Kerala 68. His Lordship observed thus: "A convenient and general test that can be applied to determine whether the correction sought for is in the field of accidental slip or omission or not, is to examine whether the judgment as it stands represents the intention of the judge at the time he made it, and if it does, then, a mistake in it cannot be treated as an accidental slip or omission". His Lordship referred to the judgment in In re Swire Mellor v. Swire, (1885) 30 Ch.D. 239), in which it was held thus: "at common law i t was always understood that the Court had the power to make these corrections. When there was any mistake which could be ascribed to the officers of the Court, judgments at common law could always be amended ". In Velayiuihaii Nair v. Kerala Ksliemam Yitnik Kuries Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1988 Kerala 223. S. Padmanabhan, J. held as follows: "Matters that can be corrected under S.152 are clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission. They could he corrected at any time by the Court suo mote or on application. In Velayiuihaii Nair v. Kerala Ksliemam Yitnik Kuries Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1988 Kerala 223. S. Padmanabhan, J. held as follows: "Matters that can be corrected under S.152 are clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission. They could he corrected at any time by the Court suo mote or on application. S.152 is based on two principles namely that the act of the court should not prejudice any party and courts have the duty to see that their records are true and present the correct state of affairs. An arithmetical mistake is a mistake in calculations while a clerical mistake is of writing or typing. Error from an accidental slip slop or omission is an error due to careless mistake or omission made unintentionally and unknowingly also. Such mistakes should he apparent on the face of the records also. When the judge carelessly and unintentionally said something in the judgment or order which he did not mean to say or omitted something which he meant, it could be said to he an error arising out of accidental slip or omission. A matter requiring elaborate argument or evidence on questions of fact or law for its discovery cannot be categorised as error arising out of accidental slip or omission in order to bring it within the scope of S.152". In the present case, I find, the plaintiff prayed for interest at 24.25% per annum with quarterly rests. That is the contractual rate. The defendants withdrew all their contentions in the written statement and agreed for decreeing the suit as prayed for. Normally there was nothing wrong for the Court to award the contract rate. It was only because of an unintentional omission that the words "quarterly rests" was omitted. Hence, according to me, the Court below was correct in allowing the amendment of the judgment and decree. The C.R.P. is dismissed.