ORDER 1. In this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 5.7.2008 passed by the Trial Court by which application preferred by respondent No. 1 under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ has been allowed. 2. In order to appreciate the petitioner’s challenge to the impugned order, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra. The respondent No. 8-Society namely Rashtriya Uttan Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’) was the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 70/1 and Khasra No. 177 admeasuring 7.37 acres and 2.15 acres, respectively. Gross irregularities and illegalities were noticed in the functioning of the Society. Accordingly, a Gazette Notification dated 5.4.1993 was published for liquidation of the society. Thereafter, the liquidator issued public notice which was published in daily newspaper “Nai Duniya” dated 3.2.2001 by which all the share-holders of the society were asked to attend the general body meeting. In the general body meeting, a decision was taken to sell the land belonging to the Society by public auction through a Government agency. Accordingly, a notice for auction of lands bearing Khasra No. 70/1 admeasuring 7.37 acres and Khasra No. 177 asmeasuring 2.15 acres was published in daily newspaper ‘Nai Duniya’ on 22.8.2001 by which bids were invited from interested parties. The petitioner participated in the auction and its bid was found to be the highest. Accordingly, by a sale-deed dated 13.3.2002, land admeasuring 7.30 acres of Khasra No. 70/1 was conveyed to the petitioner. The petitioner obtained the certificate from Income Tax Department in respect of lands in question which mentions the area of the land in question as 7.37 acres. On a spot inspection being made, the area of the land was found to be 7.37 acres, which is apparant from the copy of spot inspection report (Annexure P-5). 3. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for mutation of its name in the revenue records. The Tehsildar vide order dated 20.5.2002 passed in Case No. 151/A-6/01-02 directed mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. The petitioner got the map of the colony approved from the Department of Town and Country Planning. The Municipal Corporation, Bhopal also granted permission to the petitioner for development of the colony vide order dated 2.3.2005. The Tehsildar vide order dated 20.5.2002 passed in Case No. 151/A-6/01-02 directed mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. The petitioner got the map of the colony approved from the Department of Town and Country Planning. The Municipal Corporation, Bhopal also granted permission to the petitioner for development of the colony vide order dated 2.3.2005. The building permission was also granted in favour of the petitioner by Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, vide order dated 11.3.2005. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that since on account of inadvertence, the area of the land in question was described as 7.30 acres instead of 7.37 acres, in the sale-deed, the petitioner filed a civil suit namely Civil Suit No. 33-A/05 before the trial Court seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff sought the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of lands in question and sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the suit lands. The defendants in the suit admitted the claim of the plaintiff. The trial Court thereupon vide judgment dated 19.4.2005 decreed the claim of the plaintiff in respect of land admeasuring 7.37 acres of Khasra No. 70/1 and Khasra No. 177 admeasuring 2.15 acres. Accordingly, a decree was drawn subsequently on 21.4.2005. The petitioner thereafter started construction on the land in question and built several residential accommodation, which were sold to various persons. The details of purchasers have been mentioned in Annexure P-10, annexed with the writ petition. 5. The respondent No. 4 thereafter filed an application on 6.11.2006 under section 152 of the CPC in which a prayer was made that judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner in C.S.No. 33-A/91 be amended and the area of land bearing Khasra No. 70/1 be corrected as 7.30 acres instead of 7.37 acres. The aforesaid application was filed on the ground that in the sale-deed, the area, of land in question was mentioned as 7.30 acres and the petitioner has also sought the decree in respect of land admeasuring 7.30 acres. The petitioner filed a reply to the aforesaid application and opposed the prayer. The aforesaid application was filed on the ground that in the sale-deed, the area, of land in question was mentioned as 7.30 acres and the petitioner has also sought the decree in respect of land admeasuring 7.30 acres. The petitioner filed a reply to the aforesaid application and opposed the prayer. The trial Court by impugned order dated 5.7.2008 allowed the application under section 152 of CPC and directed that area of land bearing Khasra No. 70/1 mentioned in judgment and decree shall be read as 7.30 acres. 6. Shri Rajesh Pancholi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 1 was not a party in the civil suit instituted by the petitioner, therefore, she had no right to file the application under section 152 of CPC. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision reported in Waman Rao v. Daulat Rao, AIR 1953 Hydrabad 3. The trial Court grossly erred in allowing the application under section 152 of CPC, as the mistake was neither clerical nor arithmetical in nature. It was further submitted that the omission which goes to the root of the merits of the case cannot be corrected. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision reported in State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh, AIR 2003 SC 4179 . It was also submitted that the petitioner has created third party interest and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the power under section 152 of CPC cannot be exercised. In support of aforesaid proposition, learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of Beche Lal and others v. Hem Singh and others, AIR 1953 Allahabad 485. 7. On the other hand, Shri K.L. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is perfectly just and legal. In Para 7 of the plaint, the petitioner himself has described the area of land bearing Khasra No. 70/1 as 7.30 acres. In the relief clause as well as in the plaint, the petitioner has mentioned the area of land bearing Khasra No. 70/1 as 7.30 acres. In sale-deed, the area of land, which has been sold to the petitioner is shown to be 7.30 acres. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application under section 152 of CPC. In the relief clause as well as in the plaint, the petitioner has mentioned the area of land bearing Khasra No. 70/1 as 7.30 acres. In sale-deed, the area of land, which has been sold to the petitioner is shown to be 7.30 acres. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application under section 152 of CPC. It was further submitted that against the order impugned in the instant writ petition, an appeal lies and the writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has placed reliance on a decision reported in the case of Ganpat Rao Hiralal and another v. Aggarwal Chamber of Commerce Ltd. AIR 1952 SC 409 and Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 . 8. I have considered the submissions made on both sides. It is not in dispute that the petitioner vide registered sale-deed dated 13.3.2002 has purchased the land comprised in Khasra No. 70/1 and Khasra No. 177 in an auction, which was held by the liquidator of the society. The suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction was decreed by the trial Court vide order dated 19.4.2005 in the following terms :- “(i) That petitioner is owner of land bearing Khasra No. 70/1 admeasuring 7.37 acres and Khasra No. 177 admeasuring 2.15 acres and the defendants shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the aforesaid lands. (ii) The members of the respondent No. 8-Society shall be entitled to refund of the amount deposited by them towards the cost of the plot on production of the documents before the liquidator.” Thus, by the decree passed in favour of the petitioner on 19.4.2005, the rights of the members of the Society were also adjudicated. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 was not a party in the civil suit, which was instituted by the petitioner. It is also relevant to mention that respondent No. 1 had filed a civil suit namely Civil Suit No. 16-A/2001 seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. In the aforesaid civil suit, the respondent No. 1 had sought a declaration that she is the owner of plot admeasuring 1500 square feet and the society as well as the liquidator be restrained from interfering with the possession of the respondent No. 1 over the suit plot. In the aforesaid civil suit, the respondent No. 1 had sought a declaration that she is the owner of plot admeasuring 1500 square feet and the society as well as the liquidator be restrained from interfering with the possession of the respondent No. 1 over the suit plot. Thereafter, again in the year 2006, the respondent No. 1 filed another civil suit namely Civil Suit No. 392-A/2006 seeking the same relief of declaration as well as injunction, which was claimed in the previously instituted civil suit. The aforesaid civil suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 21.12.2006. The Civil Suit No. 16-A/2001 instituted by respondent No. 1 is still pending adjudication. 9. Section 152 of the CPC provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistake in judgment, decrees or orders arising from any accidental slip or omission. The power under section 152 of CPC cannot be equated with power of review. The omission, which is sought to be corrected under section 152 of CPC if it goes to the merits of the case, is beyond the scope of section 152 of CPC. See : State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh, AIR 2003 SC 4179 , Bijay Kumar Saraogi v. State of Jharkhand, 2005 (II) MPWN 80 = AIR 2005 SC 2435 , The Deputy Director, Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidu and others, AIR 2007 SC 740 and Kamlesh Babu and others v. Lajpat Rai Sharma and others, 2008 AIR SCW 3241. It is equally well settled in law that though no period of limitation is prescribed under section 152 of CPC, if a party has been negligent, the Court may hestitate to invoke the powers under section 152 of CPC, as in the meanwhile, the third party interest might have been created. See : Pema v. Dhany, 1972 MPLJ 378 . 10. In the light of aforesaid well settled legal position, facts of the case may be seen. The respondent No. 1 is member of the Society. The civil suit, namely, C.S. No. 16-A/2001 seeking the relief of declaration and injunction is pending adjudication. The mistake which has been corrected by the trial Court is not of clerical or arithmetical in nature as while passing the decree, the rights of the members were also adjudicated. The respondent No. 1 is member of the Society. The civil suit, namely, C.S. No. 16-A/2001 seeking the relief of declaration and injunction is pending adjudication. The mistake which has been corrected by the trial Court is not of clerical or arithmetical in nature as while passing the decree, the rights of the members were also adjudicated. The effect of allowing an application under section 152 of CPC at the instance of respondent No. 1 who is member of the society, amounts to touching the mertis of the case, which is impermissible under section 152 of CPC. Besides that, the respondent No. 1 has not invoked the powers of the trial Court under section 152 of CPC, within the reasonable time. In the meantime, the petitioner has already created third party interest. The details of the purchasers have been brought on record by way of Annexure P-10. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court ought not to have exercised the powers under section 152 of CPC at the instance of the petitioner, who did not act with due deligence. 11. Section 152 of the CPC reads as under :-- “152. Amendment of judgments, decrees of orders. -- Clerical or arithmetical mistake in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip 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.” From perusal of section 152 of the CPC, it is apparent that power under section 152 can be exercised by the Court either suo motu or on the application of any of the parties. It is well settled rule of statutory interpretation that when words of statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e., they are susceptible to only one meaning the Courts are bound to give effect to that hearing irrespective of consequences. [See : Principles of Statutory Interpretation Justice G.P. Singh, 12th Edition, Page 50]. It is true that the phrase ‘person aggrieved’ is wider than the phrase ‘party aggrieved’. However, Legislature has used the expression ‘parties’ in section 152 . Thus the right to make an application under section 152, CPC has to be confined to parties to the suit. 12. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 was not a party to the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner. However, Legislature has used the expression ‘parties’ in section 152 . Thus the right to make an application under section 152, CPC has to be confined to parties to the suit. 12. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 was not a party to the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, at her instance, the application under section 152 of CPC would not have been entertained. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Waman Rao (supra). So far as the objection raised by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that against the impugned order, an appeal lies and, therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained is concerned, it is relevant to mention here that the writ petition was admitted for hearing on 13.3.2009. It is well settled in law that in exercise of power under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the Court can even suo motu exercise the power in respect of the order passed by the Subordinate Court and can correct a patent illegality committed by the trial Court, if the same is brought to the notice of the Court even though order may be appealable. See : Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidayalaya and others v. Satyaveer Sharma, 1996 JLJ 29 . Thus, the aforesaid objection raised by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 does not deserve acceptance. 13. For the afore mentioned reasons, the order dated 5.7.2008 passed by the trial Court in MJC No. 190/2006 is quashed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.