( 1 ) THE first respondent is none other than brother of the petitioner. He filed a suit against the petitioner and his father respondent No. 2, and his brother respondent no. 3, as well as his two sisters and brothers- in-law respondents 4 to 7. The suit filed in o. S. No. 121 of 1994 for permanent injunction was decreed by the Court of Junior civil Judge, Nalgonda on 28. 7. 1997. He filed an application under Section 152 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, the Code) being LA. No. 222 of 2000 to amend the decree and the suit sketch be drawn along with the decree. The petitioner, who was defendant No. 3 in the suit, along with other defendants, filed a counter objection to the amendment sought under Section 152 of the Code. The lower court overruled the objection of the petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 and allowed the application holding that the sketch which was filed along with the plaint is part and parcel of the plaint and therefore the plaint sketch has to be attached to the decree. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Jagadish Chandra Prasad, submits that in the schedule of the property drawn in the plaint the respondent No. 1 herein did not mention the open land on the southern side of mulgies bearing Gram panchayat Nos. 8-19, 9-22 to 9-25 and therefore if the same is attached to the decree the very nature of the suit will be changed. This contention is refuted by Smt. Neeraja, representing Sri M. Venkatarama reddy, the learned Counsel for respondent no. 1. ( 3 ) THE short question which falls for consideration is whether the Court of Junior civil Judge, Nalgonda committed error in allowing the amendment under Section 152 of the Code? ( 4 ) SECTION 152 of the Code postulates that clerical or arithmetic mistakes in judgments or decrees or orders, or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the Court either on its own motion or on the application of the parties. Therefore, insofar as the jurisdiction aspect is concerned, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the trial Court exercising its power to correct the clerical slip. Therefore, insofar as the jurisdiction aspect is concerned, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the trial Court exercising its power to correct the clerical slip. The question, however, is whether by ordering attachment of the plaint sketch to the decree already given, whether the nature of the suit is changed or the scope of the suit is enlarged. ( 5 ) THE Rules in Order VI of the Code deal with the pleadings generally where as the Rules in Order VII deal with the pleadings in plaint. Rule 3 thereof requires that where subject-matter of suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain description of property sufficient to identify and in case such property can be identified by boundaries or properties in record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall satisfy such boundaries or properties. Various forms dealing with title suits and other than in relation to immovable property which are appended in Appendix-A to the Code do not prescribe the schedule of the land. In a given case compliance with Order VI, Rule 3 would suffice the requirement of law though the property is not described separately on schedule to plaint. The law only requires the plaintiff to furnish sufficient particulars or description to identify the property. ( 6 ) A copy of the plaint is placed before me. The first respondent/plaintiff in his plaint categorically averred that he and his brothers partitioned the properties long back and that the open land was given to him on which he constructed mulgies after obtaining permission from the Gram panchayat. That being the pleadings, it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the suit was only concerned with mulgies bearing nos. 8-19, 9-22 to 9-25. It must be remembered that when description of house is given, it is implied that the house includes the appurtenant land unless contrary is proved. Indeed, Section 3 (14) of the A. P, general Clauses Act, 1891 defines immovable property so as to include land, benefits arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. When the plaint itself refers to partition and also states to open land fell to the share of first respondent on which he constructed mulgies. When the plaint itself refers to partition and also states to open land fell to the share of first respondent on which he constructed mulgies. it is reasonable to infer that the injunction suit filed by the first respondent was in relation to land on which mulgies were constructed. It may be noticed that under section 152 of the Code the Court passing the decree is competent to correct any clerical mistakes in the judgments, decrees or orders any time either on its own motion or on application of the parties. When the decree for permanent injunction is granted and plaint contained a sketch and also sufficient description of the property in the plaint, the lower Court cannot be said to have committed any error ordering the first respondent application being I. A. No. 222 of 2000. Further, in the written statement, a copy of which is placed before me, the petitioner has never demurred about the correctness of the plaint sketch attached to the plaint in O. S. No. 121 of 1994. ( 7 ) IN the result, for the above reasons, no interference is called for with the impugned order passed by the Junior Civil judge, Nalgonda The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.