Honble SHARMA, J.–In Civil Second Appeal No. 192/1981 following substantial question of law was formulated on July 17, 1981:- ``Whether the lower appellate court entertained the appeal after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation? This court considered the question and allowed the appeal of the landlord on October 17, 1997 while granting six months time to the tenant to vacate the suit premises. (2). An application seeking review of the said order was filed by the tenant on April 7, 1998, which was dismissed in default on October 1, 1999. Thereafter the tenant filed instant Misc. Application on April 27, 2004 under sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the judgment dated October 17, 1997 rendered in second appeal No. 192/1981. (3). It is contended by Mr. A.K. Bhargava, learned counsel for the tenant applicant that on October 17, 1997 the tenant and his counsel could not appear before this court and the landlord did not place correct facts before this court. Since the material facts were concealed, the judgment dated October 17, 1997 is required to be recalled. Reliance is placed on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath (1994 DNJ (SC) 7), Mangi Lal vs. State of Raj. (1997 (2) RLR 755) = (RLW 1997 (3) Raj. 2017), Shri Paresar vs. Municipal Board, Mount Abu (1996 (1) RLR 649), Sushil Kumar Mehta vs. Gobind Ram Bohra ( 1990 (1) SCC 193 ), Beli Ram vs. Chaudhri Mohammad Afzal (AIR (35) 1948 Privy Council 168), Asharfi Lal vs. Koili ( 1995 (4) SCC 163 and Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji ( AIR 1987 SC 1353 ). (4). Per contra, Mr. R.S. Bhadauria, learned counsel for the landlord canvassed that once a point was decided it cannot be reviewed on the ground that view so taken was erroneous. Learned counsel placed reliance on Surendra Kumar Vakil vs. Chief Executive Officer MP ( AIR 2004 SC 3088 ). (5). I have pondered over the rival submissions and weighed the material on record. (6). Under Section 152 CPC clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therefrom may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on application by any of the parties. (5). I have pondered over the rival submissions and weighed the material on record. (6). Under Section 152 CPC clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therefrom may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on application by any of the parties. The section is based on two important principles: (i) that an act of the court shall prejudice no man, and (ii) that courts have a duty to see that their records are true and they represent the correct state of affairs. So even in the absence of any move by the parties the Court can suo motu make the correction. But the power under Section 152 is confined only to the kind of mistakes, errors, slips or omission mentioned therein. If the decree or order is sought to be varied in any other manner, it can be done only by review under order 47 or appeal. (7). In so far as applicability of Section 151 is concerned, it is well settled that inherent powers of the court are not exercisable when a specific provision exists in the Code itself. Section 151 merely furnishes legislative recognition of an age- old and well established principle that every court has inherent power to act ex debitio justitiae to do the real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. (8). Coming to the facts of instant matter, I notice that landlords second appeal was admitted on July 17, 1981 and when it came up for hearing on October 17, 1997 i.e. after 16 years and three months, the tenant and his counsel did not appear. This Court proceeded to hear the appeal and allowed it on the ground that the lower appellate court wrongly disposed of the appeal in favour of the tenant. This court observed that the first appeal was filed by the tenant after expiry of period of limitation without explaining cause for delay and without filing application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The tenant thereafter filed application seeking review of the judgment dated October 17, 1997 but the application was dismissed on April 7, 1998. In my opinion instant application under sections 151 and 152 CPC is not maintainable. The tenant thereafter filed application seeking review of the judgment dated October 17, 1997 but the application was dismissed on April 7, 1998. In my opinion instant application under sections 151 and 152 CPC is not maintainable. I find not merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant tenant. (9). Consequently, the application stands dismissed without any order as to costs. The interim order passed during the pendency of application is vacated.