JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.: Regular Second Appeal No. 50 of 1982 was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.8.1991. The operative part of the judgment thus rendered is as follows:- "A decree for declaration and joint possession with the defendants is passed .in favour of the plaintiffs to the effect that Smt Gunthi and plaintiff No. 2 being widow and son of late Shri Goverdhan are entitled to inherit 1/24th and 1/12th share each respectively from the land in dispute. They are also held entitled to decree for prohibitory injunction against the defendants to the extent of the above said share. No costs." 2. The present application has been filed under Sections 131,152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the decree holder i.e. Sant Ram on the plea that the total land in dispute was measuring 244 Bighas and 15 Biswas, out of which 76 Bighas and 9 Biswas contained in Khasra No. 129 to 132 stood vested with the tenants in accordance with law having conferred proprietary rights on them. The remaining land is 168 Bighas and 6 Biswas, and out of this land 23 Bighas also went to the tenants after they had been conferred proprietary rights. Now, the area remaining is 144 Bighas, out of which only l/3rd being 47.14 Bighas went to the parties in dispute. The remaining land had gone to the village being the right holders. In other works, the suit land in facts pertains to only 47.14 Bighas. 3. According to the decree holder-applicant in the operative part of the judgment, a clerical mistake has occurred in which the actual area of the land in sipute i.e. 47 Bighas and 14 Biswas has not been mentioned. The said judgment was reviewed on the application moved by the respondent i.e. judgment debtor on 18.3.1994. In this also, there was an omission to mention the area in dispute. It is further stated in the application that when the decree holder-applicant i.e. Sant Ram approached the executing court, the said court raised an objection that it is not clear that out of which property, the shares have been explained or given. This is so because according to the facts, it appears that the area measuring 168 Bighas approximately was involved. This is so because according to the facts, it appears that the area measuring 168 Bighas approximately was involved. When the warrants for possession were issued, the report given by the revenue department was mat for want of appropriate ascertainment of the shares of the property, the possession could not be delivered. Hence, the prayer for amendment of the judgment and decree referred to above has been made in the present application. 4. The application is being opposed by die respondent-judgment debt-or-Bhagwan LaL In his reply, he has taken the preliminary objection that the application is not maintainable in view of die fact that this Court has passed the decree on 18.3.1994 in R.S A. No. 50 of 1982 and as a result of the same Smt Gunthi and plaintiff No.2 being die widow and son respectively of late Goverdhan were entitled to inherit 1/24th and l/12th share each respectively in the land in dispute e. By way of the present application, the applicant-decree holder is seeking incorporation of the land involved to be incorporated in the decree, however, he is required to apply for partition proceedings and get his share separated. This cannot be done in the garb of moving the present application for amendment of die decree. It has been prayed that the decree has become final between the parties. Another preliminary objection which has been raised is that die application is liable to be rejected on the short ground that it has been filed in die year, 1996 whereas the judgment and decree was passed on 18.3.1994. The application is highly belated. The third preliminary objection is that the proper course for the applicant-decree holder is to approach the revenue court by way of partition proceeding; which he has not done. In fact, the answering respondent being aggrieved against die judgment and decree passed by this Court had preferred an S.L.P. before the Honble Apex Court It has further been stated in the reply that the applicant-decree holder is not at all aggrieved against the judgment and decree which has become final between the parties. The last preliminary objection raised by the answering respondent is that the application deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the applicant-decree holder has got alternative and efficacious remedy. 5. On merits, it has been admitted that the land in dispute actually measures 47 Bighas and 14 Biswas. The last preliminary objection raised by the answering respondent is that the application deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the applicant-decree holder has got alternative and efficacious remedy. 5. On merits, it has been admitted that the land in dispute actually measures 47 Bighas and 14 Biswas. However, the plea has been reiterated that instead of moving the present application for amendment of the decree of this Court, the proper course for the applicant-decree holder is to apply for partition of the suit land before the revenue authorities. 6. I have heard the .learned counsel for the parties. I find force in the objections taken in the reply. As per the plea of the applicant - decree, holder, the judgment and decree of this Court was passed on 28.8 1991. This application was filed on 7.1.1996. There is no indication therein as to why this application has been filed at such a belated stage i.e. more than four years after the judgment and decree sought to be amended. Secondly, as per own admission of the application-decree holder, the judgment and decree of this Court was reviewed on the application moved by the respondent i.e. judgment debtor, on 18.3.1994. At that time also, no such prayer appears to have been, made as there is no such plea in the application. There is no indication as to why the applicant -decree holder kept mum even at that time. This is another reason for not granting the application. Thirdly, it is the admitted case of the parties that it was the judgment debtor-respondent who was aggrieved against the original judgment and decree of this Court in R.SA. No. 50 of 1982 and he had preferred an S.L.P. which was, however, dismissed by the Honble Apex Court. This would mean mat the applicant-decree holder was satisfied with die judgment and decree of this Court. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the said judgment and decree has become final inter parties and cannot now be reopened by way of the present application. 7. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. A perusal of the operative-part of the judgment and decree passed on IB.8.1991 in R.S.A. No. 50 of 1982 indicates that there is no clerical mistake in the same, as is sought to be pleaded in the present application. 7. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. A perusal of the operative-part of the judgment and decree passed on IB.8.1991 in R.S.A. No. 50 of 1982 indicates that there is no clerical mistake in the same, as is sought to be pleaded in the present application. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the provisions of Sections 151,152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. If the applicant-decree holder is entitle to any other remedy available to him under the law, he is at liberty to avail the same, but the relief he is praying in the present application cannot be granted for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore. In so far as the plea and argument raised on behalf of the judgment debtor-respondent that the remedy, of the applicant-decree holder is by way of partition proceedings by applying before the revenue authorities is concerned, mat is up to him to consider and avail in case the same is available to him under the law. Nothing further needs to be said on this aspect of the case. 8. For the reasons recorded above, this application has no merit and is otherwise not maintainable. The same is accordingly dismissed with costs.