( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that. A. 5 filed by the plaintiff whereby the request made for appointment of a Receiver had been rejected by order dated 20-8-1998. But, in the order there was no such direction that defendant shall furnish accounts every fortnight. The defendant had come up in revision from that order itself before this Court and this Court vide order passed by Sri K. R. Prasada Rao, J. , dismissed the revision opining that revision was not maintainable and further observed that if any such directions are given by the Trial Court by any separate order, 1st defendant is entitled to challenge any such direction at that stage. Thereafter, it appears Court corrected the mistake and numbered the directions as, (1) Application rejected. (2) Defendant 1 shall file accounts every fortnight. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel contended that no application appears to have been made on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned Court below was not justified in correcting the orders and putting another direction that the defendant 1 shall file accounts every fortnight. ( 4 ) I have applied my mind to these contentions of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. ( 5 ) FROM the order impugned I find that the Court below itself has considered that aspect of the matter with respect to apprehension placed by the applicant and observes: "thus, the apprehension of the applicant that, this defendant is not rendering the accounts could be made good by issuing a direction in this regard to the 1st defendant to render the periodical accounts and file it in the present suit once in 15 days. Further, the apprehension of the plaintiff that she may lose her share in the income cannot be accepted and if in the event of her success in the suit, she would be awarded her appropriate share in the income from the said bus". Making these observations, the Court below held that it is not just and convenient to appoint a receiver. Really Court might have thought after it has observed that direction has to be given in the operative portion of the order. Making these observations, the Court below held that it is not just and convenient to appoint a receiver. Really Court might have thought after it has observed that direction has to be given in the operative portion of the order. So it put a direction in the light of the above observations in its judgment because that is the ground for rejection of request for the appointment of a receiver. The Court realised its mistake and it can be said to be clerical mistake in the order. It is one of the trite principle of law that no party should be made to suffer because of the mistake of the court and if such an error has crept in, Court can exercise its suo motu powers under Section 151 or 153. The Court below has only corrected this clerical mistake which had crept in the order. Its intention is very clear in the earlier portion of the order of issuing such a direction. As such, direction 2 has been put in the order that defendant shall file accounts every fortnight. This direction does not appear to be illegal nor from it any injustice or injury is going to be caused, instead direction appears to be just keeping in view the interest of the plaintiff and keeping in view the fact that plaintiff will/may also get her share. Thus considered, order being just and no injustice appears to have been done to the revision applicant, revision is dismissed.