( 1 ) THIS revision discloses as to what it costs for the parties, if the Court is not vigilant in drafting the decrees in conformity with the judgment. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed O. S. No. 1254 of 1986 against the respondents for a decree in a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- jointly and severally against all the three defendants, further relief for a decree in a sum of Rs. 83,795/- and for future interest on a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- f rom the date of plaint till the date of realization at the rate of 19% per annum was claimed exclusively against the third respondent. The suit claim related to realization of certain amounts from the third respondent and encashment of bank guarantees furnished by respondents 1 and 2. ( 3 ) THE 3rd respondent remained exparte. The suit was contested by respondents 1 and 2. Ultimately, it was decreed on 4-4-1997. However, the decree was drafted in such a way that it is for a consolidated sum of Rs. 6,08,794. 52, that the amount of rs. 5,00,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 19% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum, and that all the defendants are jointly and severally liable for it. On finding that the decree does not conform with the judgment, respondents 1 and 2 filed i. A. No. 958 of 1997 under Section 152 read with Section 151 C. P. C. with a prayer to amend the jointly and severally with the 3rd respondent and no relief, as such, was claimed against his clients by the petitioner as regards recovery of Rs. 83,000/- or interest on a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- be it at the rate of 19% or 6%. He submits that the order passed in I. A. 958 of 1997 did not bring the decree in conformity with the judgment. He contends that there is no prohibition in law as to the number of applications under Section 152 c. P. C. as long as the object is to ensure that the decree accords with the judgment. ( 4 ) AS observed earlier, the suit was filed with a three-fold relief. It is beneficial to extract the same. (i) Pass a joint and several decree against all the defendants for a sum of Rs. ( 4 ) AS observed earlier, the suit was filed with a three-fold relief. It is beneficial to extract the same. (i) Pass a joint and several decree against all the defendants for a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/-; (ii) Pass a decree against defendant no. 1 for a sum of Rs. 83,794-52; (iii) Award future interest on rs. 5,00,000/- from the date of the plaint till the date of realization at the rate of 19% per annum against defendant No. 1" ( 5 ) THE trial Court framed independent issues touching on these three separate prayers. They read as under: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for Rs. 5. 25 lakhs against all the defendants jointly and severally as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for Rs. 83,794-52 Ps. as against the first defendant? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future interest at 19% P. A. against the first defendant to a sum of Rs. 5. 00 lakhs" ( 6 ) THE first defendant (third respondent) remained ex parte and on contest by respondent 1 and 2 herein the suit was decreed as prayed for. All the three issues were answered as they are, in favour of the petitioner herein in the judgment dated 4-4-1997. However the trial Court drafted the decree as under: this COURT DOTH ORDER AND decree AS FOLLOWS:- (1) That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 6,08,794-52 Ps. (2) That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff the interest at the rate of 19% P. A. from the date of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% p. a. till the date of realization on rs. 5,00,000-00. (3) That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 22,988-00 towards costs of the suit. " ( 7 ) ON the face of it, this decree did not conform with the judgment. Not only the claims were mixed up, but also the liabilities, which were specifically prayed for and fixed by the Court, were, jumbled up. The obligation of respondents 1 and 2 even according to the prayer in the suit was only joint and several, limited to Rs. 5,25,000/ -. However, under the decree, they were made liable for the entire suit claim. The obligation of respondents 1 and 2 even according to the prayer in the suit was only joint and several, limited to Rs. 5,25,000/ -. However, under the decree, they were made liable for the entire suit claim. Obviously, feeling aggrieved by this development, respondents 1 and 2 filed i. A. No. 958 of 1997 under Section 152 read with Section 151 C. P. C. It is rather shocking to know that through its order, dated 6-1-1998 the trial Court further confounded the matter and brought about a totally uncalled for and unwarranted situation. It directed as under: "for the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed to amend the decree dated 4-4-1997 by incorporating the rate of interest at 19% P. A. on a sum of rs. 6,08,794-52 ps. from the date of suit till the date of decree, and not on a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, as stated" the result is that the respondents were exposed to greater liability. This amendment, apart from not bringing the decree in conformity with the judgment, had further complicated the matter. There was hardly, any application of mind. ( 8 ) TAKING advantage of this situation, the petitioner filed E. P. No. 127 of 2003 claiming a sum of Rs. 20,46,256/- against respondents 1 and 2. Surprised with this, the respondents filed I. A. No. 193 of 2004, once again knocking the doors of the Court to correct the decree, so that it can conform with the judgment. The trial Court realized the mistakes committed by it earlier, and directed that the decree shall be re-drafted in accordance with the judgment. ( 9 ) BEFORE adverting to the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to note that it is not only a fundamental principle of adjudication, but also a requirement under Rule 6 of orderxxixc. P. C. thatadecree shall conform with the judgment. Hardly, any precedent is necessary to support this principle. ( 10 ) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioner that filing of successive applications for correction of mistakes is impermissible. According to it, respondents 1 and 2 already filed I. A. No. 958 of 1997 for correction of the decree and if they were not satisfied with the outcome of the same, they ought to have carried the matter in revision or appeal. It is stated that the revision filed by them was rejected. According to it, respondents 1 and 2 already filed I. A. No. 958 of 1997 for correction of the decree and if they were not satisfied with the outcome of the same, they ought to have carried the matter in revision or appeal. It is stated that the revision filed by them was rejected. It is true that the principle of res judicata applies even in respect of interlocutory proceedings. However, it is difficult to import that principle in respect of the applications filed under Section 152 c. P. C. It needs to be recognized that by filing an application under Section 152 C. P. C. a party can never be said to be claiming any relief as such. It has to be treated as a measure adopted by the party to inform or remind the Court that a mistake occurred at its level, indrafting the decree. As a matter of fact, the mistakes are required to be corrected by the Courts on their own accord. It is more a ministerial than an adjudicatory exercise. Simply because an application is filed, it cannot be treated as an exercise of right by the applicant. It is in this context that it makes little difference as to how many number of applications are filed as long as the mistakes persist and the decree does not accord with the judgment. ( 11 ) ANOTHER submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the scope of section 152 C. P. C. is limited and the power under that provision cannot be utilized to bring about substantial changes in the judgment, or for that matter, the decree. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the supreme Court in State of Punjab s case. A perusal of Section 152 C. P. C. itself discloses that it is competent for a Court to correct not only arithmetical and clerical errors but also the accidental slips and omissions. In the case before the Supreme Court, an entire paragraph was sought to be lifted from a judgment in exercise of power under section 152 C. P. C. Naturally, it was held that such a course is impermissible. In the case before the Supreme Court, an entire paragraph was sought to be lifted from a judgment in exercise of power under section 152 C. P. C. Naturally, it was held that such a course is impermissible. The fact that a second view is possible on an observation made or finding recorded by a Court in its judgment does not constitute a ground to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 152 c. P. C. It is impermissible to review a judgment, under the guise of exercise of power under Section 152 C. P. C. The situation in the instant case is totally different here. The trial Court committed a blatant irregularity and illegality, while drafting the decree. When it was brought to its notice through an application, it further complicated the issue by committing further mistakes of grave nature. Not even a word was sought or required to be interpolated in the judgment. The effort of the respondents 1 and 2 was only to ensure that the outcome of the judgment is reflected in the decree. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court committed any error in the order under revision. ( 12 ) THE objection as to the time, at which the application is filed is also untenable. The reason is that Section 152 C. P. C. in clear terms provides for correction of such mistakes "at any time". Therefore, there does not exist any basis to interfere with the order under revision. ( 13 ) TO put the record straight and to ensure that mistakes are not committed, it is directed that the decree to be drafted pursuant to the order under revision, must be for (i) a joint and several decree against all the defendants for a sum of rs. 5,25,000/-; (ii) a decree, only against defendant no. 1 for a sum of Rs. 83,794-52 Ps; (iii) future interest on Rs. 5,00,000/- from the date of the plaint till the date of realization at the rate of 19% per annum, against defendant No. 1 alone. ( 14 ) IN that view of the matter, the liability of respondents 1 and 2 herein shall be restricted on a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- and not more. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.