ORDER N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8-11-2001 passed by II ADJ Shajapur in MJC No. 10/2000 whereby the application filed by the Respondents under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure dated 7-4-2000 was allowed and it was directed that in the judgment and decree dated 7-4-2000 passed in First Appeal No. 44-A/99, length of the house be read as 57 ft. instead of 17 ft., against which the present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that Late Jeetmal whose L.Rs. are the Respondents, filed a suit for possession on 19-2-1944 for the property situated at Nai Sadak, Shajapur. The suit was contested by Ramswaroop whose L.Rs. are the Petitioners. Vide judgment dated 19-12-1953, suit filed by deceased Jeetmal was decreed in respect of the land mentioned in the map attached with the plaint. Against the judgment dated 19-12-1953 passed by learned Civil Judge, an appeal was filed by deceased Ramswaroop which was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 10/54. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 31-1-1959. After dismissal of appeal, execution petition was filed by deceased Jeetmal-decree holder in which objections were filed by the Petitioner on 16-10-59 and the warrant of possession was issued against the Petitioners for the property shown in the map vide Exh. D-l. On 8-10-1960, Nazir submitted a report to the effect that land is not in accordance with the map and expressed his inability to deliver the possession. Somewhere in the year 1960 possession was handed over to the Respondents. Thereafter, Petitioners filed an application on 21-1-1961 wherein correctness of the warrant of possession was challenged and it was alleged that possession of excess land has been delivered to the Respondent. It was prayed that possession be re-delivered to the Petitioners. The reply was filed by the Respondents on 4-2-1961 and vide order dated 12-11-1964, the objections filed by the Petitioners were rejected, against which an appeal was filed by the Petitioners which was allowed vide order dated 9-5-1970 wherein it was ordered that if the Respondents have obtained possession of excess land then the same be redelivered to the Petitioners. Against the order dated 9-5-1970 the matter came up before this Court in M.A. No. 98/70 and appeal filed by deceased Jeetmal was dismissed on 17-12-1974. Against the order dated 9-5-1970 the matter came up before this Court in M.A. No. 98/70 and appeal filed by deceased Jeetmal was dismissed on 17-12-1974. Thereafter on 6-5-1982, Petitioners filed an application under Section 144 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure for restitution of possession in compliance with the order dated 9-5-1970. This application was dismissed vide order dated 30-7-1984 by the Executing Court against which the Petitioners filed an appeal which was numbered as 24/84 and was allowed by I ADJ, Shajapur vide order dated 25-3-1986 and the case was remanded to the Executing Court, against which again Second Appeal was filed by Jeetmal before this Court which was numbered as S.A. No. 189/86, which was dismissed vide order dated 11-7-1986. After the remand, vide order dated 25-8-1986 the Executing Court passed an order for restitution. Against the order passed by the Executing Court, revision petition was filed which was dismissed somewhere in the year 1988 and Executing Court passed an order whereby Commissioner was appointed for spot inspection. Against this order whereby the Commissioner was appointed, revision petition was filed which was numbered as Civil Revision No. 9/93 and vide order dated 13-9-94 directions were issued to the Petitioners to submit a map as per Exh.D-1. Prayer was also made by the Respondents to direct the Executing Court to proceed on the basis of map was rejected. Thereafter on 23-6-98, Executing Court dismissed the application against which an appeal was filed by the Petitioners which was numbered as F.A. No. 44/99 and was allowed vide order dated 7-4-2000 and it was directed that possession of excess area which has been given to the Respondent-decree holder-should be restored to the Appellants as per details given in the judgment. Against the order passed in F.A. No. 44/99 matter came up before this Court in Second appeal filed by the Respondents which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10-5-2000. Against the order passed by this Court on 10-5-2000 in Second Appeal, MCC was filed by the Respondents which was numbered as MCC No. 214/2000 and was dismissed on 21-6-2000. Thereafter Respondents filed an application before Appellate Court under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure praying that order dated 7-4-2000 be corrected. This application was opposed by the Petitioners by submitting a detailed reply. Thereafter Respondents filed an application before Appellate Court under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure praying that order dated 7-4-2000 be corrected. This application was opposed by the Petitioners by submitting a detailed reply. Thereafter another application was filed by the Respondents on 6-11-2000 wherein again it was prayed that order dated 7-4-2000 be corrected. On 2-11-2001, the Presiding Officer of the Court inspected the spot and thereafter on 8-11-2001 passed the order impugned herein whereby it was directed that description of length of house mentioned as 17 ft. in the judgment dated 7-4-2000 should be read as 57 ft. as all places. Being aggrieved by the order dated 8-11-2001, the present petition has been filed. 3. Mr. B. L. Pavecha, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Petitioners submits that impugned order dated 8-11-2001 passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal and deserves to be set aside. Learned Counsel submits that spot inspection has to be avoided by the Presiding Officer and if it is compelled, then the provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 18 has to be followed. It is submitted that according to said rule immediately after inspection of spot, memorandum is required to be prepared by the Presiding Officer but this part of the Rule was not complied with. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Nilkanth v. Gopaldas,: 1961 MPLJ 135 : AIR 1963 M.P. 230 , wherein this Court has held that "it is well known law that a site inspection note serves the Court merely for the appraisal of the situation and for a better understanding of the evidence of the parties in which the site may be referred to. It can never be the basis of a judgment". 4. Learned Counsel submits that even after inspection while deciding the case it was expected from the Court to consider the record and pass the order but in the present case only on the basis of inspection, learned Court below has passed the order. Learned Counsel further submits that though the application was filed under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure but in fact the application was filed under Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure Code. It is submitted that scope of Section 151 is limited and Court can correct the clerical/arithmetical mistakes only and the scope cannot be enlarged. Learned Counsel further submits that though the application was filed under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure but in fact the application was filed under Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure Code. It is submitted that scope of Section 151 is limited and Court can correct the clerical/arithmetical mistakes only and the scope cannot be enlarged. For this contention, reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Century Textiles Industries Ltd. v. Deepak Jain: 2009 (4) MPLJ (SC) 90 : (2009) 5 SCC 634 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that "power of Court under Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure is limited to rectification of clerical and arithmetical errors arising from any accidental slip or omission. There cannot be reconsideration of merits of matter and sole object of provision is based on maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, i.e., an act of Court shall prejudice no man". 5. Learned Counsel further submits that application filed under Section 151/152 itself was not maintainable as it was filed before First Appellate Court. It is submitted that against the judgment passed by First Appellate Court, Second Appeal was filed which was numbered as 150/2000 which was dismissed vide order dated 10-5-2000, therefore, application could not have been filed before First Appellate Court. Reliance was also placed on a decision in the matter of Deputy Director, Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidu: AIR 2007 SC 740 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: 48. The Privy Council in Piytatna Unnase v. Salnikar Sonutara Unnasi 54 Calcutta Weekly Notes Page 568, dealing with Section 189 of Code corresponding to Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure has laid down similar principle. The contention of the party in the appeal before the Privy Council was that while judgment on which the decree was based had conceded the right to an additional area of land edged green in the plain called "Spenser's plan, the decree does not follow suit and hence it has to be corrected by resort Section 189 of Ceylon Code corresponding to Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure. The Privy Council negatived the plea and held that: The highest that case can be put on behalf of the Appellants is that there are passages in the judgment which suggest that if the Judge had been minded to decide the question, he would have decided it in favour of the Appellants. The Privy Council negatived the plea and held that: The highest that case can be put on behalf of the Appellants is that there are passages in the judgment which suggest that if the Judge had been minded to decide the question, he would have decided it in favour of the Appellants. The Judge may have had good reasons for not deciding the question. He may have thought it inappropriate to decide on the title to a piece of open land when he was dealing only with issues relating to the cost of improvements in buildings, or he may have thought that any such decision might be embarrassing to parties not before the Court who had interest in land.... 47. The general rule is clear that once an order is passed and entered or otherwise perfected in accordance with the practice of the Court, the Court which passed the order is functus officio and cannot set aside the order however wrong it may appear to be. That can only be done on appeal. Section 189 of Code of Civil Procedure which embodies the provisions of Order 28, Rule 11 of the English Rules of the Supreme Court to ensure that its order carries into effect the decision at which it arrived, provides an exception to the general rule, but it is an exception within a narrow compass. The section does not take away any right of appeal which the parties may possess it merely provides a simple and expeditious means of rectifying an obvious error. 6. On the basis of aforesaid position of law, learned Counsel for Petitioners submits that impugned order passed by learned Court below is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that petition filed by the Petitioner be allowed and impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court to be set aside. 7. Mr. A. S. Kutumbale and Mr. A.S. Garg, learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of Respondents submits that right from beginning the case of deceased Jeetmal was that house which is owned by the Respondent is measuring 57ft. and land which is in dispute is measuring 27 ft. It is submitted that learned trial Court has dealt with the issue at length and has observed that Respondent is owner of the house which is having length of 57 ft. and land which is in dispute is measuring 27 ft. It is submitted that learned trial Court has dealt with the issue at length and has observed that Respondent is owner of the house which is having length of 57 ft. It is submitted that this judgment was maintained by the First Appellate Court and also by this Court. It is submitted that act of the Court should not prejudice to any of the parties. It is submitted that it was never the case of the Petitioners that house of Respondent was 17 ft. only. Learned Counsel further submits that in the objections which were filed by the Petitioners it was claimed that possession of 2 ft. land has been taken in excess by the Respondents. It is submitted that it was never case of Petitioners that beyond 27ft., possession of additional 40 ft. was given to the Respondents. Learned Counsel further submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in inspecting the side. It is submitted that since dispute was pending right from 1944 and considerable time has lapsed, therefore, Presiding Officer of the Court thought it proper to inspect the site himself. It is submitted that it is true that no memorandum was prepared immediately but on the same day immediately after the inspection, proceedings were drawn by the Presiding Officer and reason was also assigned in the order why the memorandum was not prepared on the spot. Learned Counsel further submits that in fact it was a clerical mistake in the order passed by the Appellate Court as, in place of 57 ft., it was wrongly mentioned as 17 ft. Since the mistake was clerical, therefore, First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the application. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no illegality has been committed by First Appellate Court in passing the impugned order. It is submitted that petition be dismissed. 8. Unfortunately, in spite of more than 65 years and involvement of 3 generations in the litigation, the parties are not in peace and still the dispute is going on. Effort was made by this Court to settle the dispute with the assistance of Senior Advocates of both the parties but unfortunately it failed. 9. 8. Unfortunately, in spite of more than 65 years and involvement of 3 generations in the litigation, the parties are not in peace and still the dispute is going on. Effort was made by this Court to settle the dispute with the assistance of Senior Advocates of both the parties but unfortunately it failed. 9. Order XVIII, Rule 18, Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to inspect which lays down that: The Court may at any stage of a suit inspect any property or thing concerning, which any question may arise and where the Court inspects any property or thing it shall, as soon as may be practicable, make a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection and such a memorandum shall form a part of the record of the suit. 10. Rule 18 of Order XVIII is required to be exercised only in rare of rarest cases. It appears that since the parties were in dispute since last more than 65 years, therefore, Presiding Officer of the learned Court below found it proper to inspect the property in dispute so that final verdict can be passed. In the present case, the possession of the "property was taken by the Respondents somewhere in the year 1961. In the application which was filed by the Appellant on 21-2-1961 and again on 6-5-82 it was never stated that Respondents have taken possession of excess land which is having the width of 27 ft. In the judgment dated 19-12-1953, the trial court has specifically mentioned that:- ????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? 57 ??? ???? ?? ?? | ???? ?'??? ?? ??? ???? "? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? | ?-? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ?? | 11. Respondents have filed the photographs which shows the existing position of the house of Appellants and in between both the houses, there is open land which is in dispute. 12. From perusal of record it is evident that size of the house which is of Respondents, appears to be of 57 ft. which is adjoining to the suit land. Respondents have filed the photographs which shows the existing position of the house of Appellants and in between both the houses, there is open land which is in dispute. 12. From perusal of record it is evident that size of the house which is of Respondents, appears to be of 57 ft. which is adjoining to the suit land. It is true that learned First Appellate Court has not prepared the memorandum on spot immediately after inspection but on that very day immediately after the inspection order was passed in which particulars regarding the inspection were mentioned and it was also clarified that why the memorandum was not prepared. Keeping in view all this, this Court is of the view that provisions of Rule 18 of Order XVIII was substantially complied with. After going through the judgment dated 19-12-1953 and also the application filed by the Petitioners on 21-12-1961 and 6-5-1982 and also perusal of the order which was passed by learned Court below after inspection wherein it was observed that house in occupation of the Respondents which is mentioned as 17 ft. be read as 57 ft., this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed. So far as the last contention which is raised by the learned Counsel for Petitioners regarding maintainability of the application is concerned, it is true that impugned order has been passed by the First Appellate Court and order was challenged in Second Appeal but same was dismissed in motion hearing, therefore, it cannot be said that order passed by the learned Appellate Court is merged in the order passed by this Court. In view of this, the petition filed by the Petitioners has no merits and the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs.