N. K. JAIN, C. J. ,, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed on 15-6-2002 under Section 152 of the code of Civil Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of india for correction of the word "dismissed" appearing in the 5th line of the order dated 21-11-1990 as "decreed". ( 2 ) NO doubt, this Court becomes fanctus offtcio after passing order, judgment or decree, but it can correct a clerical or arithmetical error and an error arising therein from any accidental slip or omission either on its own motion or on the application made by any party. So also, as far as the delay is concerned, this Court is lenient in condoning the delay if sufficient and reasonable cause is shown. It is also settled that no party should suffer due to the mistake of the Court, and the same can be corrected at any point of time, if the mistake or arithmetic error is on the part of the Court. ( 3 ) A bare reading of the application reveals that same can be dismissed. The learned Senior Counsels Sri Chidambaram and Sri Udaya holla have argued the case at length, and therefore, it is necessary to state the relevant facts leading up to this application. ( 4 ) THE property comprised at No. 25, Sankey Road, Bangalore City known as "baquerbad" belonging to late Sri Aga Ali Askar, by virtue of the Will executed by him was included in the list of Wakf property maintained by the Wakf Board. It is averred that the mutawallis after obtaining sanction to the scheme by the Wakf Board executed a registered lease deed in favour of M/s. Monarch Corporation on 15-10-1973 which in turn assigned the leasehold rights in favour of Vishwarama hotels Limited (Present in ITC Hotels) on 13-9-1974. The assignee was put in possession of the property, who after demolition of existing structure has put up a Five Star Hotel. The assignee was put in possession of the property, who after demolition of existing structure has put up a Five Star Hotel. Anjuman-e-Imamia and three others belonging to Shia Muslim Community filed O. S. No. 8041 of 1980 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore on 15-9-1980 seeking for a declaration that Shia Public are entitled to continuous use and enjoyment of the property and lease dated 15-10-1973 and assignment dated 13-9-1974 are null and void and for perpetual injunction against defendants m/s. Vishwarama Hotels, Windsor Manor Hotel and Karnataka Wakf board arrayed as defendants 2, 4 and 5 respectively. In the said suit trial Court granted an order of temporary injunction against defendants which was set aside in M. F. A. No. 2445 of 1981 before this Court by order dated 27/28-1-1982 and special leave petition against said order has been dismissed by Supreme Court in SLP No. 2253, dated 28-5-1982. The Wakf Board by its proceeding dated 3rd, 4th and 5th June, 1981' in exercise of power under Section 36-A of the Wakf Act, 1954 declared that the above said lease deed dated 15-10-1973 and assignment dated 13-9-1974 are null and void and pursuant to said resolution the. Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings for recovery of Wakf property under Section 38-B of the Act and the same was impugned in w. P,no. 13379 of 1981 before this Court. Said writ petition was allowed on 3-8-1990 and being aggrieved by the same Wakf Board filed W. A. No. 2163 of 1990 and this Court by order dated 21-11-1990 disposed of the appeal and passed the following order:"after some argument, all that the learned Counsel for the appellant wants is to observe that the rights of the parties will stand settled as per the final outcome of O. S. No. 8041 of 1980, pending on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore. It shall be so. We may also add should the suit be dismissed then the impugned order passed by the Wakf Board, Annexure-L, dated 3rd, 4th and 5th of June, 1981 will stand revived. Thereupon, it will be open to the writ petitioner-Vishwarama Hotels Limited, to raise all defences available to it to attack the order. Dismissed, subject to the above observation". We may also add should the suit be dismissed then the impugned order passed by the Wakf Board, Annexure-L, dated 3rd, 4th and 5th of June, 1981 will stand revived. Thereupon, it will be open to the writ petitioner-Vishwarama Hotels Limited, to raise all defences available to it to attack the order. Dismissed, subject to the above observation". ( 5 ) IT is averred in this application that expression "dismissed" appearing in the course of above order is a clerical/typographical error in place of word "decreed" and position becomes clear by reading operative portion of the order passed by learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 13379 of 1981, dated 7-8-1990. The mistake has occurred on account of an accidental slip and hence needs to be corrected. It is further averred that the applicant become aware of the typographical error crept in the order dated 21-11-1990 only in 18-4-2002 when applicant obtained copy of the ' complaint dated 12-11-2001 from the office of the competent officer and application is filed within reasonable time from the date of knowledge and hence there is no delay in filing the application and the delay if any is bona fide and unintentional. ( 6 ) THE respondent has filed statement of objections denying the allegations as alleged. It is stated that it is wrong to say that the applicant came to know only on 18-4-2002 about the order, passed on 21-11-1990. The application is filed after an inordinate delay of 12 years without explaining the same and it is liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that the applicant was fully aware about the order, had been made use of in a collateral proceedings. It is stated that after dismissal of the suit for default, a notice was issued on 19-11-2001 and the same was challenged in W. P. No. 5169 of 2002, which was dismissed with certain directions, now the present application has been filed for necessary correction. It is stated that even on merits there is no typographical or clerical error nor any accidental slip. ( 7 ) WE have heard the learned Counsels for the applicant and the respondent and perused the materials on record and the case-laws. It is stated that even on merits there is no typographical or clerical error nor any accidental slip. ( 7 ) WE have heard the learned Counsels for the applicant and the respondent and perused the materials on record and the case-laws. ( 8 ) IT is not necessary to discuss each case as the law is settled and in view of recent decision of Supreme Court in Jayalakshmi Coelho v oswald Joseph Coelho, that Section 152 of the CPC enables the Court to rectify clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission in judgment or order either on its own motion or on application of parties. The principle behind the provision is that no party should suffer due to mistake of Court and whatever is intended by the Court while passing the decree or order must be properly reflected therein, an unintentional or inadvertent mistake of the Court which may prejudice cause of any party must be rectified. Arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing and whereas an error arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission is an error due to unintentional mistake on the part of the Court. However, the power under Section 152 of the CPC cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original order so as to in effect pass an effective judicial order after the judgment in the case and liberal use of provision beyond its scope is deprecated. ( 9 ) IN the light of the above principles regarding exercise of power under Section 152 of the CPC the question is as to whether there was any clerical error arising out of accidental slip in the order passed by this Court on 21-11-1990. Having regard to the averment made in the application and statement of objections regarding laches and also having regard to the fact that no right of any third party has intervened and applicant is the successor in interest of Vishwarama Hotel who was first respondent in writ appeal and also having regard to the fact that Court can on its own motion also rectify mistake, if any, under Section 152 of the CPC, we hold that applicant cannot be held to be guilty of laches. ( 10 ) THE order dated 21-11-1990 which is sought to be rectified reads as follows:"after some argument, all the learned Counsel for the appellant wants is to observe that the rights of the parties will stand settled as per the final outcome of O. S. No. 8041 of 1980, pending on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore. It shall be so. We may also add should the suit be dismissed then the impugned order passed by the Wakf Board, Annexure-L, dated 3rd, 4th and 5th of June, 1981 will stand revived. Thereupon, it will be open to the writ petitioner-Vishwarama Hotels Limited, to raise all defences available to it to attack the order. Dismissed, subject to the above observation". ( 11 ) IT is the case of the applicant that in the fifth line of the order mistake has occurred in mentioning the word "dismissed" instead of "decreed" and said error has crept in due to accidental slip resulting in typographical error. It is the contention of the respondent that there" is no error or ambiguity in the order as the order is clear and unambiguous. In order to consider the rival contention of the parties it is necessary to reproduce the prayer sought for in the suit, O. S. No. 8041 of 1980 and contents of the resolution dated 3rd, 4th and 5th June, 1981. In order to consider the rival contention of the parties it is necessary to reproduce the prayer sought for in the suit, O. S. No. 8041 of 1980 and contents of the resolution dated 3rd, 4th and 5th June, 1981. ( 12 ) THE plaintiffs in O. S. No. 8041 of 1980 has sought for the following reliefs in the suit:" (A) by declaring that the defendants 1 to 4 have no leasehold rights in respect of schedule property and that the Shia public are entitled to the continuous use and enjoyment of the schedule property unaffected by the said lease or assignment thereof whatsoever and that the lease and assignments whatsoever do not bind the Shia public in any manner whatsoever, declaring the lease deed dated 15-10-1973 and the assignment dated 13-9-1974 as null and void and confer no legal right upto any of the defendants apart from the incidents of rights as members of Shia public; (b) granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or their workmen, agents, assigns/successors whomsoever from entering upon the suit schedule property or otherwise further altering or managing the condition of the property; (c) granting mandatory injunction against the defendants to restore the property to its original condition as it is practical in the circumstances; (d) awarding costs of these proceedings; and (e) granting such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in favour of the plaintiffs in the circumstances of the case". ( 13 ) THE resolution of the Karnataka Wakf Board, dated 3rd, 4th and 5th June, 1981 reads as follows:"resolved that in compliance with the spirit of the said notice, the lease deed dated 15-10-1973 executed between the late Padmashri humayun Mirza along with the other 4 Trustees and M/s. Monarch corporation, No. 17, Sankey Road, Bangalore and the assignment deed dated 13-9-1974 between M/s. Monarch Corporation and M/s. Vishwarama Hotels Limited, New Delhi, for a period of 50 years are hereby declared null and void and for that reason they are declared inoperative against the Karnataka Board of wakfs and the Aga Ali Asker Wakf, Bangalore". ( 14 ) THE operative portion of order of the learned Single Judge of this court in W. P. No. 13379 of 1981, dated 7-8-1990 reads as follows: "in the result, this petition is allowed and the proceedings dated 3rd to 5th June, 1981 at subject No. 22 confirming the proposed action in the show-cause notice dated 23-9-1980 are quashed and the respondents are restrained from taking any further action in exercise of its powers under Section 36-B of the Act. If however the Court of the City Civil Judge in O. S. No. 8041 of 1980 proceeds to hold that the lease and the assignment in favour of the petitioner is invalid it shall be open to the 1st respondent to take such further action as may be permissible under law. Rule made absolute accordingly". ( 15 ) VISHWARAMA Hotels of which applicant is successor in interest which had been arrayed as first respondent in the writ appeal had filed caveat and was represented by a Counsel before this Court when the order dated 21-11-1990 was passed. This Court has observed "we may also add should the suit be dismissed then the impugned order Annexure-B, dated 3rd to 5th June, 1981 will stand revived. Thereupon, it will be open to the writ petitioner-Vishwarama Hotels Limited, to raise all defences available to it to attack the order. Dismissed, subject to the above observation". Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge stood confirmed in the writ appeal filed by the Wakf Board subject to above said observations. ( 16 ) IT is clear from the reliefs sought for in the suit that if the suit is decreed the lease and assignment has to be declared as null and void and the plaintiff will be entitled to get consequential reliefs including restoration of possession of the property. Then there will be no question of the Wakf Board invoking provisions of the Wakf Act for restoration of possession pursuant to the resolution dated 3rd and 5th June, 1981. The cause of action or occasion for revival of the said resolution will arise only in case of dismissal of the suit. In any view of the matter, this Court cannot go into the merits of the matter to find out whether it would have been more appropriate for the Court to have mentioned the word "decreed" in place of "dismissed" in the order. In any view of the matter, this Court cannot go into the merits of the matter to find out whether it would have been more appropriate for the Court to have mentioned the word "decreed" in place of "dismissed" in the order. We find that the order is clear and unambiguous. ( 17 ) ON consideration, we hold that mentioning of the word "dismissed" in the fifth line in the order of this Court dated 21-11-1990 is not a clerical error arising out of accidental slip so as to call for rectification under Section 152 of the CPC and accordingly the application is liable to be dismissed. ( 18 ) I. A. No. II is dismissed. --- *** --- .