Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. Plaintiff-petitioner filed suit for eviction. By judgment and decree dated 14th of May, 1999 passed in Title(E) Suit No. 18 of 1993, the suit was decreed and the defendant was directed to vacate the suit premises as mentioned in Schedule-I of the plaint within two months of the date of the decree. 2. Defendant, aggrieved by the same, preferred appeal before the first appellate court on 28.5.1999 which was registered as T.A. No. 36 of 1999. Plaintiff-decreeholder, put the decree for execution by filing the execution case on 28.1.2000, which was registered as Execution Case No. 3 of 2000. Defendant-judgment-debtor filed application in the execution case on 28th April, 2000, inter alia, stating that the boundary of the premises in the decree has wrongly been given and prayed that till it is corrected, delivery of possession be stayed. 3. The executing court rejected the said prayer of the judgment-debtor on the ground that writ for delivery of possession has been sought in accordance with the decree. 4. The Nazir, who was given the writ to affect delivery of possession, however, reported that the boundary of the premises is not correct. In view of the said report of the Nazir, the executing court by order dated 28.4.2000, directed the decree-holder to take steps for correction of the decree. 5. Description of the property shown in Schedule-I of the plaint and the decree is as follows: SCHEDULE-I Description of the suit premises situated at Chitkohra Punjabi Colony, P.S. Gardanibagh, Distt. Patna under the tenancy of defendant from which eviction is sought. House and land of three rooms bearing Holding No. 257/20 (Old) 182 (256 (New) Circle No. 265. Bounded as follows: North:Ram Kishan Sah South:Self East:Road West:Self 6. The decree-holder, as directed, filed application on 9.11.2000 for amendment of the plaint and the decree before the trial court. Amendments sought for were as follows: "1. That in the cause title of the plaint and decree the name Khadan be corrected as Khajan, 2. In the fifth line of Schedule-I of the plaint after the word New and before the word Circle the digit 191/255 be added, 3. And in the boundary of the Schedule-I of the plaint; 4. The name "Ram Kishan Sah" be deleted and in its place "Road" be inserted, 5. In the fifth line of Schedule-I of the plaint after the word New and before the word Circle the digit 191/255 be added, 3. And in the boundary of the Schedule-I of the plaint; 4. The name "Ram Kishan Sah" be deleted and in its place "Road" be inserted, 5. The word "self" be deleted and in its place "Ram Kishun Sah" be inserted." 7. Judgment-debtor filed rejoinder, inter alia, contending that he had preferred title appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree which is pending and the decree holder can seek relief in that. By order dated 4.1.2001 prayer of the decreeholder was rejected. 8. Aggrieved by the same, decreeholder preferred Civil Revision No. 180 of 2001 before this Court and by order dated 20.2.2002, said civil revision application was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the decreeolder to file petition for amendment before the appellate court. 9. It is interesting to note that the judgment-debtor then filed application dated 16.3.2002 before, the appellate court seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. Decree-holder filed rejoinder dated 22.3.2002 opposing the same. However, the appellate court by order dated 9.7.2002 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. 10. Aggrieved by the same, the decree-holder preferred Civil Revision No. 999 of 2002 before this Court. By order dated 23.9.2002, said civil revision application was disposed off with the following observation: "xxx In my view, the petitioner is not remediless. He may either file a fresh revision application or file an application in the earlier civil revision ap plication for appropriate order on the basis of subsequent facts." 11. Decree-holder then filed fresh revision application against the order dated (4.1.2001 rejecting the prayer for amendment of the plaint, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 1582 of 2002. By order dated 21.4.2005, said revision application was disposed of with the following observation: "xxx The petitioner in the circumstances is permitted to file an application before the trial court for amendment of the decree and the trial court will consider the grievance of the petitioner taking into consideration that though the decree was obtained by the petitioner, yet it is not being executed because of the amendment not having been allowed and shall pass necessary order in accordance with law." 12. In the light of the aforesaid, decree-holder filed another application for amendment in the plaint and the decree. 13. In the light of the aforesaid, decree-holder filed another application for amendment in the plaint and the decree. 13. By reason of the impugned order, said prayer has been rejected. Decreeholder, aggrieved by the same, has preferred this application. 14. First amendment sought by the decree-holder is in relation to name of the plaintiff and it had prayed that the name Khadan be corrected as Khajan. Said prayer for amendment was rejected on the ground that although such a prayer was allowed earlier, the amendment was not carried out. So far as other amendments are concerned, same have been rejected on the ground that the amendments sought for are neither clerical nor arithmetical in nature. It further observed that if the amendment is allowed, it shall involve a property over which the parties did not contest. Further, the ground taken to reject the prayer for amendment was that such an application filed, earlier was rejected by order dated 4.1.2001. 15. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the decree-holder-petitioner, contends that the amendments sought for, in sum and substance, are nothing but correction of the clerical mistake and the court below, erred in rejecting the prayer. He submits that the judgment of the court giving rise to the decree can be looked into to ascertain the identify of the subject matter of the suit. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Gauri Kumari Devi vs. Krishna Prasad and Ors., AIR 1957 Patna 575. "In answer the Court there relying on the decisions in Radhemoni Devi vs. Gobind Chandra Das, AIR 1942 Pat. 196 (Z-23) and Sheo Balak Prasad Awasthi vs. Jugal Kishore Nara in, 17 Pat. ILT 540 (AIR 1936 Pat. 568) (Z-24) came to the conclusion that even in cases like the present one it was open to the Court to interpret the decree in the light of the judgment and to enforce the same on the basis of that interpretation in the former case Chatterji J., observed." 16. ILT 540 (AIR 1936 Pat. 568) (Z-24) came to the conclusion that even in cases like the present one it was open to the Court to interpret the decree in the light of the judgment and to enforce the same on the basis of that interpretation in the former case Chatterji J., observed." 16. Yet another decision, on which reliance has been placed is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhavan Vaja and Others vs. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang and Another, AIR 1972 SC 1371 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from para-19 of the judgment, relevant portion thereof, reads as follows: "19. It is true that an executing court cannot go behind the decree under execution. But that does not mean that it has no duty to find out the true effect of that decree. For construing a decree it can and in appropriate cases, it ought to take into consideration the pleadings as well as the proceedings leading up to the decree. In order to find out the meaning of the words employed in a decree, the Court, often has to ascertain the circumstances under which those words came to be used. That is the plain duty of the execution Court and if that court fails to discharge that duty it has plainly failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Evidently the execution court in this case thought that its jurisdiction began and ended with merely looking at the decree as it was finally drafted. Despite the fact that the pleadings as well as the earlier judgments rendered by the Board as well as by the appellate court had been placed before it, the execution court does not appear to have considered those documents. If one reads the order of that Court, it is clear that it failed to construe the decree though it purported to have construed the decree." xxx 17. Mr. Raghubansh Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the judgment-debtor-opposite party, however, contends that the amendment sought for cannot be said to be clerical in nature and as such, same has rightly not been allowed. He further submits that the decree-holder has remedy to file fresh suit and in that view of the matter, the court below did not err in rejecting the prayer of the decreeholder. 18. He further submits that the decree-holder has remedy to file fresh suit and in that view of the matter, the court below did not err in rejecting the prayer of the decreeholder. 18. Having appreciated the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Mahto. It is well settled that correction of clerical nature and arithmetical error can be allowed but the question is as to what is meant by error of clerical nature and arithmetical error. In my opinion, these expressions have to be understood in the background of the case. 19. In the suit for eviction, various issues were framed, which include the following issues: 6. Whether there is any relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties? 7. Whether the defendant is a tenant of three rooms as alleged by plaintiff on the basis of written and oral lease? 8. Whether the defendant was a tenant in only one room on the basis of written lease deed dt. 15.4.89? 20. The trial court had adjudicated the aforesaid issues together, relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: lssue Nos. 6, 7 and 8: "These issues are connected with each other, therefore, they are taken together for decision. It is not disputed at the bar before me that the plaintiff is the owner and title holder of the suit property and the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties is also admitted. The only difference is that the plaintiff say that out of the three rooms one room was let out to the defendant on a monthly rental of Rs. 200/- on 15.4.1989 through registered lease deed and subsequent thereto two rooms were iet out to the defendant further on a monthly rental of Rs. 350/- after one month. Whereas the defendant say that the entire three rooms were given under his tenancy on monthly rental, of Rs. 200/- on 15.4.1989 by virtue of the registered lease deed. A perusal of the admitted document marked "Y" for identification which is the photo-copy of the lease deed dt. 15.4.89 shows that one room was given under the tenancy to the defendant on a monthly rental of Rs. 200/- for a fixed term tenancy till 14th April, 1993 i.e. for a period of four years only. A perusal of the admitted document marked "Y" for identification which is the photo-copy of the lease deed dt. 15.4.89 shows that one room was given under the tenancy to the defendant on a monthly rental of Rs. 200/- for a fixed term tenancy till 14th April, 1993 i.e. for a period of four years only. Therefore, from the document itself it is clear that the rent of one room under tenancy of the defendant is Rs. 200/- and only one room was let out through lease deed to defendant. The plaintiff Khajan Singh as P.W. 1 has stated that he is the owner of the disputed house and he let out one portion of the disputed house to the defendant for a period of four years on a monthly rental of Rs. 200/- and subsequent to it two rooms were also given under the tenancy of the defendant on a monthly rental of Rs. 350/- in the same house." 21. The Court below, ultimately held as follows: "xxx Now the premises in suit is nothing but the three rooms which is fully described in Schedule-I of the plaint. Therefore, issue nos. 7 and 8 both are decided in affirmative. And similarly, issue no. 6 is also decided in affirmative." 22. From the aforesaid, there is no escape from the conclusion that the decree-holder got decree for eviction of three rooms occupied by the judgment debtor. 23. In the light of aforesaid, when I consider the application for amendment, I am of the opinion that same comes within the expression clerical error. In the plaint and decree, the plaintiff has been described as Khadan Singh, whereas, by amendment, prayer is to correct it as Khajan Singh. Further, number of plot at few places and northern and southern boundary were sought to be corrected keeping the eastern and western boundary to be the same. 24. In the background of the judgment, I am of the opinion that the amendments sought for are clerical in nature and as such, same ought to have been allowed. 25. In the result, the application is allowed, order dated 17.11.2005 passed by the Munsif, II, Patna, in Title(E) Suit No. 18 of 1993 is set aside and the amendments sought for are allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. 26. Let the lower court record be sent down immediately.