ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this revision, the applicant challenges the order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, on 20/1/2004, in Regular Darkhast No. 256/1982, permitting an amendment to the plaint as also the decree passed in favour of the non-applicant. 2. Few facts giving rise to the controversy involved in the revision application, are stated thus- The applicant is the original defendant no.3. The nonapplicant had filed a suit against the applicant and two others for possession and mesne profits. According to the plaintiff/nonapplicant, he was the owner of Shop Block No. 32 in House No. 44/30, Gandhibagh, Nagpur, which admeasured 13' X 15'. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that on 21/10/1976, the plaintiff found that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 had trespassed on half of the said premises and they had opened a shop for running a hotel, cycle hiring and panthela. The plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises, but the defendants refused to vacate the same and hence the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for possession and mesne profits. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendants were rank trespassers in the suit property. The suit property was described in the plaint paragraph 5 as Shop Block admeasuring 7½' x 6½' out of shop no. 32 in house no. 44/30 in Gandhibagh, Nagpur. The boundaries of the suit property were also described in paragraph 5 and one of the boundaries mentioned that to the east of the suit property, remaining half premises of the shop was located. 3. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that they were the tenants in the suit property and were regularly paying rent to the plaintiff. It was denied by the defendants that they had trespassed upon half portion of Shop Block No. 32. The defendants pleaded that the defendants were in occupation of half portion of Block No. 32, the dimensions of which were 7½' x 13' as tenants. The defendants sought the dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The decree was confirmed by the first as well as the second appellate Courts. 5. The non-applicant/decree-holder filed execution proceedings which came to be registered as R.D. No. 256/1982. The defendants sought the dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The decree was confirmed by the first as well as the second appellate Courts. 5. The non-applicant/decree-holder filed execution proceedings which came to be registered as R.D. No. 256/1982. The defendants raised an objection before the executing Court to the effect that they were in possession of 7½ ' X 13' of the property and a decree was passed only in respect of 6½' X 7½' of the property in accordance with schedule of the suit property mentioned in paragraph 5 of the plaint. According to the defendants/judgment debtors, the plaintiff was, therefore, not entitled to seek possession of the property admeasuring 13' X 7½' when the decree was passed only in respect of 6½' X 7½' of the property. The matter was pending before the executing Court for long. Later on, the decree-holder filed an application for amendment of the decree on the ground that the decree should have been in respect of Shop Block admeasuring 13' X 7½' as a reading of the pleadings in the plaint and the written statement, clearly revealed that the plaintiff intended to seek a decree in respect of the property admeasuirng 13' X 7½'. According to the decree-holder, the boundaries of the suit property further clearly showed that the plaintiff prayed for a decree for possession of 13' X 7½' of the property and not 6½' X 7½' of the property. 6. The application filed by the decree-holder was strongly objected to, by the judgment-debtors. According to the judgmentdebtors, the amendment, as sought by the plaintiff in the decree and the plaint, could not have been permitted under the provisions of Sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was stated in the reply that the judgment and decree was correctly passed and drawn according to the measurement of the property as stated in paragraph 5 of the plaint and since the mistake was not an arithmetical or typographical error, the application for amendment of the decree and the plaint was liable to be dismissed. The executing Court, however, by the impugned order dated 20/1/2004, allowed the application filed by the decree-holder and permitted the correction in the description of the suit property which admeasured 13'X 7½'. The executing Court, however, by the impugned order dated 20/1/2004, allowed the application filed by the decree-holder and permitted the correction in the description of the suit property which admeasured 13'X 7½'. The order is impugned in the instant revision. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant by the learned counsel that the executing Court was not justified in permitting the decree-holder to amend the decree to the extent as sought by the application for correction. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the amendment as contemplated by the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relates to clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment and decree. In the instant case, the correction as sought by the decree-holder was neither a clerical nor an arithmetical mistake. It was further pointed out on behalf of the applicant that the error in the decree also did not arise due to accidental slip or omission and hence the power to amend could not have been exercised either under the provisions of Section 152 or 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The counsel for the applicant further submitted that it was categorically pleaded by the plaintiff in plaint paragraph 5 that the suit property admeasured 6½' X 7½' and the correction sought by the decree-holder to the decree, virtually changed the subject matter of the suit. The counsel for the applicant relied on the decision reported in 1999(3) Supreme Court Cases 500 (Dwarka Das Vs. State of M.P. And another), to point out that the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of the courts to liberally use Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to alter the original judgment and decree. By placing further reliance on the paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the said decision, it was canvassed on behalf of the applicant that the amendment contemplated under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure relates only to the accidental mistake or omission and does not encompass all the omissions which might have been committed by the Court while passing the judgment, decree or order. It was, therefore, submitted on behalf of the applicant that an omission sought to be corrected would be beyond the scope of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the omission goes to the merits of the case. 8. It was, therefore, submitted on behalf of the applicant that an omission sought to be corrected would be beyond the scope of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the omission goes to the merits of the case. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ decree-holder supported the impugned order and submitted that a combined reading of the plaint and the written statement, clearly showed that the plaintiff had desired a decree for possession in respect of the property admeasuring 13' X 7½'. It is specifically pleaded by the respondent in the plaint, that the entire shop block no. 32 admeasures 13' X 15' and the defendant nos. 1 to 3 have trespassed upon half of the said premises. It is then submitted on behalf of the respondent that the defendants had also admitted in the written statement that they were in possession of the property admeasuring 13' X 7½' as tenant thereof. The counsel for the respondent lastly submitted that the correction and the amendment as sought by the respondent was one which was contemplated under the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the counsel for the respondent, the executing Court had ample jurisdiction to permit the respondent to amend and correct the schedule of the property and the decree as a plain reading of the schedule mentioned in paragraph 5 of the plaint, clearly showed that there was an accidental error in mentioning the area of the suit property as 6 ½' X 7 ½' instead of 13' X 7½'. The counsel for the respondent relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1440 (Samarendra Nath Sinha & anr. Vs. Krishna Kumar Nag), 1980 Mh.L.J. 156 (Delta Products (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India ltd. and another) and AIR 1993 Madras 166 (State of Punjab Vs. The Labour Court, Jullundur & ors.) to substantiate his submissions on the correctness of the order passed by the executing Court. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. A reading of the plaint filed by the respondent clearly shows that the plaintiff/respondent had pleaded that he was the owner of Shop Block No.32 which admeasures 13' X 15'. The plaint further revealed that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 had trespassed on half of the said premises. A reading of the plaint filed by the respondent clearly shows that the plaintiff/respondent had pleaded that he was the owner of Shop Block No.32 which admeasures 13' X 15'. The plaint further revealed that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 had trespassed on half of the said premises. It further appears from the plaint paragraph 5 that the suit property was situated on the western side of the other half portion of the shop block no. 32. It is, however, stated in the plaint paragraph 5 that the defendants are in possession of the half shop block i.e. 7½' X 6½' out of shop no. 32. The defendants have also admitted in the written statement that they are in possession of half portion of shop block no. 32 which admeasures 7½' X 13' as tenant thereof. It appears that the controversy between the parties does not relate to the actual area in possession of the defendants, but relates to the nature of the relationship between the parties, which, according to the plaintiff, was that of the trespasser and according to the defendants, was that of the tenant. It is, thus, clear from a reading of the plaint that the plaintiff has come with a specific case of his ownership over the block admeasuring 15' X 13' and the illegal occupation of the defendants over the half portion of the said premises. Though the plaintiff has pleaded in a couple of paragraphs in the plaint that the defendants have trespassed upon half portion of the suit block no. 32, it appears that accidentally while describing the suit property in plaint paragraph 5 both 15' and 13' came to be divided by 2 or reduced by half to mention the measurement of the property as 7½' X 6½'. The mistake in stating the measurement of the property was clearly an accidental slip. The description of the suit property in paragraph 5 of the plaint also further mentioned that the suit property was bounded on the east side by half of the premises of shop no. 32. Since the entire shop block admeasures 13' X 15', the half of the same could either be 6½' X 15' or 13' X 7½'. However, the defendants have themselves admitted in the written statement that they were in possession of the property admeasuring 13' X 7½'. 32. Since the entire shop block admeasures 13' X 15', the half of the same could either be 6½' X 15' or 13' X 7½'. However, the defendants have themselves admitted in the written statement that they were in possession of the property admeasuring 13' X 7½'. Thus, a combined reading of the plaint and the written statement clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff intended to seek a decree for possession of half portion of shop block no. 32, which admeasured 13' X 7½' and, therefore, the necessary correction was sought at the time of execution of the decree. The ratio in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment reported in 1999 (3) SCC 500 and relied on by the applicant, cannot be applied to the facts of this case. In the instant case, the slip was an accidental one and the error being accidental, could have been corrected by invoking the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact, the judgment reported in 1980 Mh.L.J . 156 strongly supports the case of the respondent and hence has been rightly relied on by the executing Court while passing the impugned order. In the aforesaid reported decision of this Court, this Court had considered the plaint pleadings as also the description of the property as stated in the schedule to hold that the incorrect description of the property in the schedule was a mistake or error arising out of accidental slip or omission and the same was liable to be corrected by the Court at any time, on an application by the parties, or even suo motu. The other reported decisions which are relied on by the counsel for the respondent also support the case of the respondent to a great extent. In the instant case, both the parties were aware of the fact that the subject matter of the property was half portion of shop block no.32 which admeasured 13' X 15'. As stated above, the dispute between the parties was not one relating to the area in occupation of the defendant, but was related to the nature of the relationship between the parties. As stated above, the dispute between the parties was not one relating to the area in occupation of the defendant, but was related to the nature of the relationship between the parties. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the executing Court rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure by permitting the necessary amendment/correction in paragraph 5 of the plaint and the decree passed by the Court. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs