ORDER U.B. Saha, J. 1. The instant revision petition is filed by the Petitioner, who is the Plaintiff in TS 1104/2006, pending before the learned Munisff, No. 3, Guwahati, Kamrup challenging the order dated 19.3.2009 (Annexure-4 to the revision petition) passed in Misc. (J) case No. 157/2008 arising out of the aforesaid Title Suit wherein the learned Munsiff rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for correction of typographical error in the cause title of the plaint particularly, the name of the Plaintiff on the ground that the application which was filed for correction is under Section 151 instead of an application under Rule 17 of order VI of the Code. 2. As agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, the instant revision petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage. 3. Heard Mr. Sheeladitya, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the Respondent - Oriental Marketing Corp. 4. Facts needed to be discussed for disposal of the instant revision petition are as follows: Petitioner filed the title suit before the learned Munisff, No. 3 at Gauhati for ejecting the Respondent, who was the Defendant in the suit, from the suit premises and for realization of arrear of rent and the said title suit had been registered as TS 1104/2006. Upon receipt of the summons the Defendant appeared and contested the case by way of filing written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned Munisff framed issues and subsequent thereto the Petitioner also adduced evidence by way of filing affidavit. At that stage, it was detected that in the cause title of the plaint the name of the Petitioner being Plaintiff is wrongly typed as Mutt. Abida Abu Bakkar instead of Mutt. Adiba Abu Bakkar and, therefore, the Petitioner had filed the petition under Section 151 of the Code to correct the typographical error/mistake inadvertently made in the plaint. The aforesaid application was registered as Misc. (J) 157/2008. Abida Abu Bakkar instead of Mutt. Adiba Abu Bakkar and, therefore, the Petitioner had filed the petition under Section 151 of the Code to correct the typographical error/mistake inadvertently made in the plaint. The aforesaid application was registered as Misc. (J) 157/2008. In response to the aforesaid application under Section 151 of the Code for correction of typographical error, the Defendant filed an objection stating, inter alia, that the petition under Section 151 of the Code is nothing but a petition for amendment of the plaint for which a specific provision order VI, Rule 17 has been provided and the same would apply, not Section 151 of the Code and more so, the petition has been filed at a belated stage to fill up the lacuna and thereby the Defendant would be prejudiced. It is also stated that the Defendant has taken a specific plea in the written statement, inter alia, there is no relationship of the landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and Defendant - Respondent and the suit premises belongs to one Adiba Abu Bakkar. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Munisff vide order dated 19.3.2009 while rejecting the prayer for typographical error relating to the name of the Plaintiff in the cause title of the plaint held that the petition under Section 151 is not tenable in law. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner - Plaintiff filed the instant revision petition. 5. Mr. Sheeladitya while assailing the impugned order would contend that the learned Munsiff vide the impugned order in fact non-suited the Petitioner on a hyper-technical ground for mere a typographical mistake of the Petitioner in the cause title of the plaint, though in the plaint name of her husband and the address was properly mentioned and not only that she also put her signature as Adiba Abu Bakkar. He further urges that amendment of pleadings under order VI, Rule 17 requires only when there is some error in the pleadings of the parties while stating material facts, not typographical error in the cause title of the plaint and in the instant case, admittedly, there is no factual error in the pleading. He further urges that amendment of pleadings under order VI, Rule 17 requires only when there is some error in the pleadings of the parties while stating material facts, not typographical error in the cause title of the plaint and in the instant case, admittedly, there is no factual error in the pleading. He again urges as to when a suit is filed by a wrong person against the Defendant s then only order I, Rule 10 would apply, here the suit is filed by a proper person against the proper Defendant, only in name there is a typographical error. Hence, order I, Rule 10 also has no application. He finally contended that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for correction of a mere typographical error. Therefore, only remedy available is under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the same is provided to do substantial justice in exercising the inherent' power of the court. When there is no such specific provision available in the Code of Civil Procedure for providing relief as sought for, for just decision of the case. According to him, the Law report referred by the Defendant [(2009) 2 GLR 556] before the court below and relied upon by the court have no application in the instant case as the facts of that case and the fact of this case is totally different. Reliance on a decision can be placed only if the factual situation in the case in hand and the case relied on fit in. More so, one additional or different fact can make a world of difference between the conclusions in two different cases even when the principles are applied in each case to similar facts, he contended. 6. Per contra, Mr. Sarma while resisting the submission of Mr. Sheeladitya and supporting the impugned order would contend that the learned court below did not commit any error by way of rejecting the prayer for correction of alleged typographical error in the plaint, as allowing the Plaintiff to correct her name would cause prejudice to the Defendant particularly, when Defendant took a specific plea in its written statement, inter alia, genuineness of the Plaintiff's name as the landlord. He further contended that after the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Legislature, particularly, the incorporation of the proviso in Rule 17 of order VI impose a bar upon the court even for accepting an application for amendment of the pleadings unless the court is satisfied that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. He again contended that the Petitioner failed to approach the court in time after filing of the written statement wherein the Opposite Party-Defendant challenged the identity of the Plaintiff. He finally contended that the learned court below rightly took note of the decision of this Court in Bolo Ram Paul and Ors. v. Disendra Dutta and Anr. (2009) 2 GLR 556. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it would be proper for this Court to examine the provisions of order 6, Rule 17 vis-a-vis the Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It would also be necessary to examine order VI, Rule 1 wherein it is stated that "pleading" shall mean plaint or written statement as well as the particulars contained in the plaint and order VII wherein it is mentioned what should be contained in the plaint. 8. There is no doubt that pleading includes plaint and written statement but question is what the pleading shall contain? Whether the names of the parties or the material facts; which are necessary for adjudication of the suit? According to this Court, though a plaint is to contain the particulars, inter alia, the name of the court, the name, description and place of the residence of the respective parties, i.e., Plaintiff and the Defendant. The facts constituting the cause of action and showing the court in which it is filed and which has the jurisdiction to decide the disputes. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that there is a distinction between 'pleading' and 'plaint' and the Legislature also prescribed two separate provisions, order VI and order VII respectively, and for correction of the typographical error of the Plaintiff or Defendant, if any, caused inadvertently then order VI, Rule 17 would not apply as the same is relating to amendment of the pleadings, not for correction of a typographical error. More so, an error committed in the plaint when is not within the hand of the parties being typographical error is the fault of a machine not of a human like the parties in the suit. To appreciate the aforesaid views of this Court it would be profitable to reproduce the provisions of Rule 17 of order VI as well as Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the same are reproduced hereunder: 17. Amendment of pleadings. - The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 151. Saving of inherent powers of court. - Nothing in this Code 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. 9. After going through the impugned order it appears to this Court that the learned court below failed to consider that a court is established to do substantial justice between the parties and not to non-suit a party on a hyper technical ground like a typographical error, more so, when the same error is unintentional Mr. Sheeladitya very rightly pointed out how reliance on a decision has to be placed. It is trite that the decision is an authority for what it has actually decided and not what can be deduced from it. Though the obiter dictum of the Apex Court is binding on all the courts the fact remains that to be binding the authority on any specific issue, the issue must be at least raised and answered indirectly or by application. Though the obiter dictum of the Apex Court is binding on all the courts the fact remains that to be binding the authority on any specific issue, the issue must be at least raised and answered indirectly or by application. In Haryana Financial Corporation v. S. Jagadamba Oil Mills (2002) 3 SCC 496 the Apex Court has observed "Courts should not place reliance on a decision without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of the courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute". Similar observation was also made by the Apex Court in Padnna Sudna Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu (2002) 3 SCC 533 . In Madhav Rao Siwaji Rao Scindiya Bhadur v. Union of India AIR 1971 SC 530 wherein the Apex Court also cautioned, inter alia, it is not proper to record the word, a clause or a sentence occurred in a judgment of the Supreme Court coming from its context as containing a full exposition of the law on a question when the question did not even fall to be answered in that judgment. From the impugned judgment it also appears that the learned court below while relying on the judgment of this Court in Bolo Ram Paul and Ors. (supra) overlooked the fact of that case. In that case no question was involved as to what should be the remedy for a justice seeker to cure the typographical error in the cause title. Therefore, reliance on that case by the court below was not proper. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Sheeladitya, so far how and when a decision can be considered as a precedent has some force. 10. This Court is of the further opinion that Bolo Ram Paul and Ors. (supra) has no application in the case in hand as the facts of that case is totally different from the case in hand. Even if it is considered that the said law report has some bearing then also that goes in favour of the Petitioner, and not in favour of the Opposite Party-Defendant as in that case this Court held that court has the power to allow the prayer for amendment even after framing of issues subject to the proviso to order VI, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure. 11. 11. When court has the power to decide the subject-matter of an application, mere wrong quoting of a provision in the application would not oust the jurisdiction of the court to pass such an order as is required for ends of justice. The procedures are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. 12. The Legislature enacted the provisions of Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure only to remind the court to exercise its power when the prescribed procedure is silent on a particular aspect and if the court fails to exercise the said power in a given case that would affect the cause of justice and according to this Court in the instant case the decision of the lower court below in rejecting the prayer for correction of typographical mistake/error relating to the name of the Plaintiff is nothing but a denial of justice to a justice seeker on a hyper-technical ground. Court should not non-suit a party only on bare ground of typographical error in the cause title of the plaint when there is no error in the material facts stated in the pleadings. 13. It is the settled position of law that inherent powers set by Section 151 are to be used only to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the court being the inherent power is a discretionary power, the court before invoking such power has to take into account several matters such as complexity of the questions involved, availability of a mere complete and efficacious remedy by means of a suit and the apparent justice of the claim. There are cases where the court exercises its power even for modification/review of the judgment or order in the ends of justice as the same is permissible where no specific provision of law is available. As in the instant case, the Petitioner only sought for correction of a typographical error and for which there is no specific provision in the Code, on the other hand it can be said that the Code is silent. As in the instant case, the Petitioner only sought for correction of a typographical error and for which there is no specific provision in the Code, on the other hand it can be said that the Code is silent. Only remedy available is under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for such correction and according to this Court, it is a fit case where the court should exercise its powers under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure. 14. Therefore, there is no hesitation in the mind of this Court that the impugned order is required to be interfered with being the same is not sustainable in law and accordingly the same is set aside and the prayer of the Petitioner for correcting the typographical error in her name is allowed and the court below is directed to correct accordingly the cause title of the plaint and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 15. However, as such correction of the Petitioner's name in the cause title though does not cause any prejudice to the Defendant - Corporation but obviously would create a hurdle for defending its case, therefore, the court below may consider the prayer of the Respondent Defendant, if any made for filing of additional written statement or application for amendment of the written statement, for defending its case, in accordance with law. 16. Parties are at liberty to approach the court below to expedite the hearing of the suit, if so advised. 17. In view of the above, the instant revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.