JUDGMENT MR. M.R. SHAH, J. 1. RULE. Shri M. P. Prajapati, learned Advocate waives service of notice of RULE on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Shri Vyas, learned Advocate waives service of notice of RULE on behalf of the respondent 2.2/1 in Civil Revision Application No. 285 of 1999. As such respondent No. 1 herein-original plaintiff is the main contesting party. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, present revision application is taken up for final hearing today. 2. HEARD Shri B. S. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner herein- original plaintiff and Shri Jigar Raval, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 herein-original defendant No. 1- original appellant and Shri Vyas, learned Advocate for the heirs of the original plaintiff No. 1. Present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner herein- original appellant-plaintiff to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 11.8.1998 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 148 of 1988 by which the learned Judge initially dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dated 29.10.1988 hi Regular Civil Suit No.1246 of 1977 however subsequently on the very day without issuing any notice to the respective parties allowed the said appeal in purported exercise of powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. IT appears that petitioner herein and one another had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 1296 of 1977 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara against the respondent No. 1 herein-original defendant No. 1 for recovery of possession of the suit agriculture land. That the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara by judgment and decree dated 29.10.1988 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff ordering that the respondent No. 1 herein-original defendant No. 1 to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit agriculture land and southern portion admeasuring 2 acres and 14 gunthas on survey No. 345 and further directing the defendant No. 1 to pay mesne profit at the rate of Rs.2000/- p.a. from 1972 to till handing over the possession. IT appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1988 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No. 1246 of 1977, respondent No. 1 herein-original defendant No. 1 preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 148 of 1988 before the learned District Court, Vadodara. That the learned Appellate Court framed the following points for determination. Whether the applicant side proves that the judgment and decree passed in RCS No. 159 of 1972 is lawful and therefore, findings of the learned trial Judge that the decree is nullity are illegal Whether the appellant side proves that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge in RCS No. 1246 of 1977 is illegal and based upon erroneous findings Whether the appellant side proves that the learned trial Judge did not appreciate the ration of different decisions cited by the present appellant before the trial Court and, therefore, the decree is liable to be set aside What order? That the learned Appellate Court pronounced the judgment on 11.8.1998 and initially passed the following order . "Regular Civil Appeal No.148 of 88 is hereby ordered to be dismissed with costs. Decree is ordered to be drawn up accordingly. The judgment and decree passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara on 29.10.1988 in RCS No. 1246 of 1977 is hereby ordered to be confirmed. Pronounced in the open Court on today this 11th day of the Month August, 1998. 4. IT appears that the signature of the learned Advocate for the respective parties was taken and the judgment was shown to the learned Advocate for the respective parties, thereafter the learned Judge in purported exercise of powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure put a note below the said judgment and order on the very day and passed the following orders:- "ORDER RECTIFIED u/S 151 AS FOLLOWS ORDER Read the judgment and verified the contents it transpires that primafacie in the find order is erroneous is against the determination issues and findings which is a typographical error through mistake hence it is rectified u/S 151 of Civil Suit passing following order. Notice be issued is both sides and order be got noted. Order The Regular Civil Appeal No.148 of 1988 is allowed. Confirmed the Judgment of trial Court. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Notice be issued is both sides and order be got noted. Order The Regular Civil Appeal No.148 of 1988 is allowed. Confirmed the Judgment of trial Court. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Pronounced today in open Court on this 11.8.1988. sd: illegible 11.8.1998" Thereafter, without issuing any notice to the respective parties and/or their Advocates passed the following operative portion of the order and allowed the Regular Civil Appeal No. 148 of 1988. IT is to be noted that though the learned Judge has passed an order allowing the said appeal, however he also passed an order confirming the judgment of the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Judge i.e. learned Appellate Court the petitioner herein original- plaintiff No. 1 has preferred the present revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders one another Second Appeal has also been preferred by the heirs of original defendant No. 1 along with Civil Application permitting them to prefer the Second Appeal alleging inter alia that the whereabout of original defendant No. 1 are not known and, therefore, they may be permitted to prefer Second Appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 148 of 1988 as heirs and legal representative of original defendant No. 1 Baria Babubhai @ Babalbhai Ishwarbhai. Shri B. S. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court cannot be sustained. It is submitted that initially the learned Judge dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, however on the very day without issuing any notice to the parties and/or their Advocates he has himself modified the earlier order in purported exercise of powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and changed the earlier order and passed an order allowing the appeal. It is further submitted that even though the learned Judge passed an order to issue notice upon both the sides, no notices were issued and straightway on the very day instead of dismissing the appeal he passed the order allowing the appeal. It is further submitted that even though the learned Judge passed an order to issue notice upon both the sides, no notices were issued and straightway on the very day instead of dismissing the appeal he passed the order allowing the appeal. It is further submitted that even while passing the order allowing the appeal even the learned Appellate Judge has passed an order to confirm the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It is submitted that if the appeal was to be allowed in that case, judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was required to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that thus the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is nothing but non application of mind by the learned Judge. It is submitted that even the findings in the appeal by the learned Judge were against the appellant and in favour of the petitioner -plaintiff still the learned Judge has passed an order allowing the appeal. Therefore, it is submitted that even the order passed by the learned Appellate Court allowing the appeal is contrary to his own findings. It is further submitted that even if the learned Judge was of the opinion that there was a typographical error and/or mistake in that case, power, which could be exercised could be under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and/not under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By making above submissions, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order and to remand the matter/appeal to the Appellate Court for deciding the same afresh. 5. SHRI Jigar Raval, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 herein-original defendant No. 1 has submitted that even original appellant- defendant No. 1 is aggrieved by the findings given by the learned Appellate Court. It is further submitted that on one hand the learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal however he has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and even the findings are against the respondent No. 1 herein-original appellant. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court is a example of non application of mind by the learned Judge. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court is a example of non application of mind by the learned Judge. Therefore, he has also requested to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and remand the matter/Appeal to the learned appellate Court for deciding the same afresh. SHRI Vyas, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2 has also supported the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 6. HEARD the learned Advocates for the respective parties at length and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the then learned Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara. Considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court following facts emerge. That the learned Judge initially pronounced the judgment and order in the open Court and specifically passed the following order :- "Regular Civil Appeal No.148 of 88 is hereby ordered to be dismissed with costs. Decree is ordered to be drawn up accordingly. The judgment and decree passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara on 29.10.1988 in RCS No. 1246 of 1977 is hereby ordered to be confirmed. Pronounced in the open Court on today this 11th day of the Month August, 1998, Thus, initially the learned Judge dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The said judgment and order which was pronounced, was signed by the learned Judge. Not only that but the learned Advocates for the respective parties put their signature below the said judgment and order as "seen". That thereafter, the learned Judge put to the following note below the said pronounced judgment and order, "order rectified under Section 151 as follows". That the learned Judge further passed an order that "on verification of the contents of the judgment, it transpires that prima facie the final order is erroneous and is against the determination issued and findings which is a typographical error through mistake hence it is rectified u/S 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and the learned Judge specifically passed the order that notice be issued to both the sides and order be got noted". That thereafter, below that order the learned Judge has passed the following order :- "The Regular Civil Appeal No.148 of 1988 is allowed. Confirmed the Judgment of trial Court. Decree be drawn up accordingly. That thereafter, below that order the learned Judge has passed the following order :- "The Regular Civil Appeal No.148 of 1988 is allowed. Confirmed the Judgment of trial Court. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Pronounced today in open Court on this 11.8.1988. sd: illegible 11.8.1998" It is to be noted that though the learned Judge has passed an order allowing the appeal he has also passed an order confirming the judgment of the learned trial Court. Once the appeal was to be allowed as such judgment of the learned trial Court was required to be set aside. Thus, it appears that the entire judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court is nothing but a non application of mind and against all known procedure to be followed under the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also required to be noted at this stage that as such the findings are against the appellant. Once the findings are against the appellant then the appeal was required to be dismissed. The appellate Court did not make any change in the findings and by maintaining findings as it is, which were against the original appellant, in the operative portion of the order the learned Judge though initially dismissed the appeal subsequently without any notice to the parties and/or their Advocates suo motu modified the order and passed an order allowing the said appeal. The aforesaid order cannot be sustained. As per Rule 1 of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce the judgment in an open Court, either at once, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. As per proviso to sub Rule 1 of Order 20, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced, shall after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced and form a part of the record. As per proviso to sub Rule 1 of Order 20, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced, shall after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced and form a part of the record. As per sub Rule 3 of Order 20, the judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge in open Court at the time of pronouncing it and, when once signed shall not afterwards be altered or added to, save as provided by Section 152 or on review. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers power upon the Court to correct the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slop or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. However, such power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be exercise when there is specific power and/or procedure to be followed under the Code of Civil Procedure. At this stage, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Harilal reported in AIR 1962 SC 527 is required to be referred. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision the inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure are to be exercised by the Court in very exceptional circumstances, for which the Court lays down no procedure. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that inherent jurisdiction of the Court to make the orders ex-debito justitiae is undoubtedly affirmed by Section 151 of the Code but that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the provisions of the Code. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where the Code deals expressly with a particular matter the provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where the Code deals expressly with a particular matter the provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive. As stated herein above, the learned Judge has exercised the power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which could not have been exercised by him in view of specific powers under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Rule 3 of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the circumstances, the correction made by the learned Judge after the judgment was pronounced and signed cannot be sustained and same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. EVEN in a case where the learned Judge is of the opinion that the judgment which is pronounced and signed is required to be corrected due to clerical or arithmetical mistakes either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties, in that case, such a alteration and/or correction cannot be made without giving an opportunity to the respective parties to the suit. In such situation, the learned Judge is required to issue notice upon the parties and only thereafter after giving them an opportunity clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment if any can be corrected. In the present case, as stated above no notice has been issued by the learned Judge and he himself changed the operative portion of the order and instate of dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court corrected the same and passed an order to allow the appeal that too after pronouncement of the judgment in the open Court and after it was signed, which cannot be sustained. It is to be noted that even while exercising the power under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure only clerical or arithmetical mistakes only can be corrected by the Court. It is to be noted that in the present case, even the findings of the learned Appellate Court are against the respondent No. 1 herein- original appellant and still without any change in the findings he has passed an order allowing the appeal. 8. It is to be noted that in the present case, even the findings of the learned Appellate Court are against the respondent No. 1 herein- original appellant and still without any change in the findings he has passed an order allowing the appeal. 8. IT is also required to be noted that though subsequently the learned Judge has passed an order to allow the appeal however he has also passed an order to confirm the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Both cannot go together. An order to allow the appeal and confirm the judgment of the trial Court is self contradictory. Once if the appeal is to be allowed in that case, judgment and decree of the learned trial Court is to be set aside. In other words, if judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is to be confirmed in that case, the appeal is to be dismissed. Thus, it appears that there is total non application of mind by the learned Judge in passing the subsequent operative portion of the order. In the present case as stated above, both the parties to the appeal request to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and both of them are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and they have requested to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order and remand the matter to the learned Appellate Court for deciding the same afresh. 9. IN view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order dated 11.8.1998 passed by the passed by learned Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 148 of 1988 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Appellate Court for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law and on merits. Considering the fact that Regular Civil Appeal was of the year 1988, learned Appellate Court is hereby directed to decide and dispose of the appeal on remand at the earliest but not later than 30.6.2011. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Considering the fact that Regular Civil Appeal was of the year 1988, learned Appellate Court is hereby directed to decide and dispose of the appeal on remand at the earliest but not later than 30.6.2011. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. IN view of the order passed in Civil Revision Application No. 285 of 1999 in quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, no order in other Civil Applications and are accordingly disposed off. Applications disposed off accordingly.