ORDER The opposite parties No. 1 to 4 were noticed and have appeared though not present in the Court. 2. Heard on the question of limitation. On the facts stated in the application, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff who is the decree holder and is the petitioner before this Court. 4. The plaintiff had instituted the suit for a permanent mandatory injunction against the defendants for restraining them from interfering with his possession and/or making any construction over the suit land. As apparent from paragraph-2 of the judgment in the Title Suit No. 24 of 1989 dated 24th May, 2004, the plaintiff-petitioner had claimed in all six decimals of land pursuant to registered agreement dated 17.10.1975 as between the plaintiff-petitioner No.1 and defendant No.1. The suit on contest was allowed in respect of the entire claim of the petitioner. A decree was, accordingly, prepared in which it got to be mentioned that the area of Schedule A land was 0.0206 hectares. On decree being so prepared, it was realised by the plaintiff-petitioner that the total area for which the suit was instituted, was six decimals but by mistake in the plaint, the area on conversion to hectares was wrongly shown as 0.0206 hectares which in fact is equivalent to five decimals only. The true conversion of six decimals into hectare would be 0.0240. Accordingly an application under Sections 152 and 153 CPC was filed before the Trial Court for correction of the area on conversion into hectares. It was submitted that the mistake was purely arithmetical and did not deal with the merits of the case. The Trial Court rejected the same on the ground that the miscellaneous case which was registered for correction was not a proceeding in the suit rather execution of decree is a proceeding in a suit. Being aggrieved by such a finding and failure to exercise the Jurisdiction, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The petitioner has placed reliance in the cases of Mohinder Singh and Ors. Vs. Teja Singh and Ors., AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 47, Deo Kumar Sah Vs. Mahesh Prasad Rai and Ors., 2004(3) PLJR 354 and B. Shivananda Vs. Being aggrieved by such a finding and failure to exercise the Jurisdiction, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The petitioner has placed reliance in the cases of Mohinder Singh and Ors. Vs. Teja Singh and Ors., AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 47, Deo Kumar Sah Vs. Mahesh Prasad Rai and Ors., 2004(3) PLJR 354 and B. Shivananda Vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. and Anr., (1994)4 SCC 368 to contend that by virtue of Section 152 CPC, the Court had an inherent power and rather duty to correct accidental slips, clerical errors or arithmetical errors. Some of the said decisions were also relied before the Court below but without consideration, the Court has brushed the applicability of the said judgments. I have examined the said judgments. They are consistent that if it is pointed out even at the stage of execution that there was some clerical error, arithmetical error or accidental slip even in plaint, the same could be corrected and consequently the judgment and decree would stand corrected. In the present case, I have pointed out that the judgment in fact is in relation to petitioner's own claim of five decimals+ one decimal of land that is six decimals of land. The judgment was in favour of the plaintiff in full. The only problem occurring is when six decimals is converted into hectares in the plaint, it was wrongly mentioned as 0.0206 hectares instead of 0.0240 hectares. This is obviously an arithmetical mistake not touching upon the merits of the case. This ought to have been corrected by the Court concerned. By not doing so, the Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. 6. I, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allow this revision application.