Judgment : Seventh defendant in O.S.No.112 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsifs Court at Ariyalur, is the revision petitioner. .2. Thematerial facts which are necessary for the disposal of the revision could be summarised thus: O.S.No.112 of 1989 is a suit filed by the 1st respondent, claiming partition of 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties. Item 1 of the plaint schedule is Survey No.237/21, having an extent of 43 cents, It is further said that they have obtained right as per document No.710/39 dated 20.6.1939. The petitioner was the 7th defendant in that case. Before the institution of the suit, on behalf of the plaintiff a notice was issued on 27. 1988, wherein also a claim for partition was made. First item in the notice is also Survey No.237/21. Over this Survey No, the defendant is not claiming any right. She claimed right only over Survey No.257/21. .3. There was an earlier suit as O.S.No.1032 of 1980 filed by one Govindasamy, wherein also, the present petitioner was 1st defendant. In that case, the plaintiff in O.S.No.112 of 1989 was the 5th defendant. The plaintiff in O.S.No.1032 of 1980 claimed that he is entitled to half share over the trees in Survey No.257/21. The petitioner herein challenged the right of Govindasamy and also other defendants over Survey No.257/21. Accepting that contention, the trial court dismissed the suit as judgment dated 21. 1983. Aggrieved by the judgment plaintiff preferred A.S.No.150 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court at Ariyalur. As per judgment dated 1. 1985, the appeal was allowed and it is admitted by both sides that against which, a second appeal is pending before this Court. 4. In O.S.No.112 of 1989, the plaintiff claimed 1/4th share over the properties scheduled therein. It is the case of the petitioner that she was not served with any summons and she was also not aware of the proceeding. It is also contended that since she is interested in only Survey No.257/21, even if the summons was served, she would not have contested the case since the Survey No. is 237/21, entirely a different property. 5. An ex parte decree was passed and pursuant to the final decree, the plaintiff also moved an execution application. On the E.P., Executing Court, as per order dated 26. 5. An ex parte decree was passed and pursuant to the final decree, the plaintiff also moved an execution application. On the E.P., Executing Court, as per order dated 26. 1981, directed the bailiff to deliver possession as per decree and the decree copy was also attached. 6. Onthe same day, the Amin reported that he has given possession of the property. In the delivery receipt, instead of 237/21, Survey No.257/21 was included as 1st item. 7. On the basis of delivery receipt, plaintiff moved an application before the Tahsildar, to include her name in the registers. Though the same was allowed by the Tahsildar initially, as per order dated 26. 1992, Tahsildar found that the plaintiff is not entitled to patta for Survey No.257/21 since the decree is only 237/21. After getting such an order from the Tahsildar, which is dated 26. 1992, plaintiff preferred an application I.A.No.14 of 1995 to have the decree corrected under O.6, Rules 17 and 18 read with Secs.151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is true that in the application for correction, she also wanted the plaint description also to be corrected and that is why, she included O.6, Rule 17 also. 8. When the application was filed, notice was served on the petitioner. She filed objection to the correction petition. According to her, when the decree is fully satisfied, there cannot be any correction either in the plaint or in the decree and consequently, if correction is allowed, different property will have to be substituted. Only because, Survey No.237/21 was included in the schedule, she did not contest the suit. If Survey No.257/21 was allowed to be included, she will be prevented from agitating her right over the property. It is also contended that only Survey No. was mentioned while describing the property and no boundaries with Survey number. It is also contended that when the judgment and decree are similar, there is no scope for any correction either under Sec.151 or 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. After hearing both sides, the trial court held that there is typing mistake while describing survey number and the same is liable to be corrected. The same is challenged in this revision. 10. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated her contention that was placed before the lower court. 9. After hearing both sides, the trial court held that there is typing mistake while describing survey number and the same is liable to be corrected. The same is challenged in this revision. 10. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated her contention that was placed before the lower court. Counsel for the respondent submitted that no ground is made out for interference under Sec.115, C.P.C. 12. After hearing both sides, I feel that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. Under Sec.152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court has to find, whether there is any clerical or accidental slip. It is not the case of the plaintiff that there is any clerical or arthematic error in the judgment or decree. Plaintiff wanted partition of Survey No.237/21, he same was allowed. Both in the judgment and decree, the trial court allowed partition of Survey No.237/21. If the decree is admittedly in terms of the relief claimed, there is no question of any correction under Sec.152, Civil Procedure Code. It was so held in the decision reported in Chiyoda Corporation v. National Fertilizer Ltd. , (1995)3 S.C.C. (Supp.) 455. In para 5 of the judgment their Lordships held thus: “5. The decree being admittedly in terms of the relief claimed in the plaint which remains unamended, there is no case for modification of the decree in exercise of the powers under Sec.152, C.P.C. by increase of the amount decreed in rupees. There is no scope for grant of this further relief by modification of the decree since it does not arise out of the relief claimed in the plaint. Obviously the inherent powers of the court under Sec.151, C.P.C. are also not available in this situation.” 14. Application is not filed Under Sec.153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that O.6, Rule 17 will not apply, because, the suit is not pending and no proceedings are taken in the suit, Counsel only supported his case under Sec.152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If Sec.152 will not apply. Was the court below justified in ordering a correctione 15. I have already said that before instituting the suit, plaintiff issued a notice to all parties except the petitioner herein. If Sec.152 will not apply. Was the court below justified in ordering a correctione 15. I have already said that before instituting the suit, plaintiff issued a notice to all parties except the petitioner herein. In that notice also, she claimed partition only in regard to Survey No.237/21. It is not her case that there is any mistake in the notice. Thereafter, in the plaint also, Survey No.237/21 was alone included that was in terms of the notice. The property is described only with survey number and no boundary description is given. So, the entire identification is only on the basis of Survey Number mentioned in the plaint. 16. When the identification of the property is only with regard to survey number and not with the boundaries, the petitioner did not think of contesting the case, because, her property is not included. She is claiming only the property in Survey No.257/21. 17. In this connection, there was an earlier suit O.S.No.1032 of 1980, wherein Survey No.257/21 was the subject matter in issue. The petitioner herein hotly contested that case and accepting her contention, that suit was dismissed. It is true that in appeal, the decision went against her. But, at the same time, it is admitted that, second appeal is pending before this Court. .18. The plaintiff was also party to the earlier proceedings. After disposal of the appeal, plaintiff filed the present suit with a wrong description and at the same time, making the petitioner also, party to the suit. The intention is clear that plaintiff was not interested in facing the petitioner and that is why, she did not issue notice to the petitioner and gave a wrong description while filing the suit and a decree was obtained and Executing Court also, directed the Amin to handover possession as per decree. At the time of delivery, Survey No.257/21 was included instead of Survey No.237/21. That was made a claim before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar found out the fraud committed by the plaintiff and set aside his earlier order and restored the original patta, which stood in the name of the petitioner and others. It is thereafter, plaintiff filed this petition for correction of the decree and the plaint. That was made a claim before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar found out the fraud committed by the plaintiff and set aside his earlier order and restored the original patta, which stood in the name of the petitioner and others. It is thereafter, plaintiff filed this petition for correction of the decree and the plaint. It is also admitted in this case that after the plaintiff attempted to take possession of Survey No.257/21, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree with an application to condone delay. It is clear from the facts stated above that the plaintiff cannot contend the Survey No.237/21 is really a mistake for Survey No.257/21. From the previous conduct, it is clear that the plaintiff intentionally and fraudulently wanted to include only Survey No.237/21, so that the petitioner cannot contest the suit. The application was filed without any bona fides. 19. In A.Palanivel Chettiar v. R.Elumalai A.Palanivel Chettiar v. R.Elumalai A.Palanivel Chettiar v. R.Elumalai , A.I.R. 1985 Mad. 303 Justice Nainar Sundaram (as His Lordship then was) held that when the decree has been fully satisfied, the decree cannot thereafter will be corrected under Sec.152, C.P.C. In this case also, the decree has been fully satisfied and satisfaction was also entered after delivery was effected on 9. 1991. Following the decision of our High Court in a Palanivel Chettiars case, I hold that the correction petition itself is not maintainable. .20. Counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision reported in Kuruvilla v. State Bank of Travancore , A.I.R. 1989 Ker. 68 to contend what is meant by accidental slip or omission. In para.10 of the judgment, their Lordships have held thus: .“10. O.20, Rule 3, C.P.C. mandates that a judgment once signed cannot afterwards once signed, cannot afterwards be altered or added to, save as otherwise provided by Sec.152 or on review, O.29, Rule 6, C.P.C., makes it clear and plain that a decree shall be drawn up so as to agree with the judgment. So, alteration, amendment or addition in the judgment and decree once signed by the Judge, is allowed only under Sec.152, C.P.C., a clerical or arithematical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission. So, alteration, amendment or addition in the judgment and decree once signed by the Judge, is allowed only under Sec.152, C.P.C., a clerical or arithematical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission. It is also permissible invoking the inherent powers of the court to correct a decree which is at variance with the judgment so as to make it in conformity with the judgment. Sec.152 will not apply if it does not pertain to a clerical or arthematical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission even in a case a judgment has been passed under an erroneous impression as to the facts. I feel that 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.” [Italics supplied] 21. I hold that the above decision fully supports the case of the petitioner. Applying the above test, it has to be held that while examining the judgment and decree, the intention of the Judge is made clear, that is, he wanted to grant a relief to the plaintiff on the basis of descriping in the plaint in regard to properties scheduled therein. In this case, there is no accidental slip or omission so as to warrant a correction under Sec.152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 22. In the result, I set aside the impugned order and allow the revision. I.A.No.14 of 1995 in O.S.No.112 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Ariyalur will stand dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.Ps. are also dismissed.