ORDER 1. The defendant-petitioner prays for quashing order dated 03.08.2010 passed by Sub-Ordinate Judge-II, Patna in Title Suit no. 439 of 2006, whereby he allowed the petition dated 01.12.2007 (wrongly typed in order as 30.11.2007) filed under Section 152 and 153 of C.P.C. for making amendment in the plaint, compromise petition as well as in the compromise decree. 2. The trial court allowed the said petition on the ground that the error occurring in the plaint, compromise petition as well as compromise decree were clerical in nature. 3. The plaintiffs-respondents filed title suit no.439 of 2006 for specific performance of the contract for sale of Schedule-1 property in their favour and to further direct the defendant/petitioner to admit execution and registration of the requisite sale deed. The plaintiffs-respondents prayed in alternative for an award / decree of Rs.1,70,000/- + 23,000/- + 6300/- totaling Rs. 1,99,300/- along with 12 per cent interest per annum till its realization. The details of the property is described in Schedule-1, which is quoted herein below for easy reference: SCHEDULE-1 Mauza Tauzi No. Khata No. S.P. No. Area Duzara 525 14,155 172, 173 One Shop P.S. 14844 & 588 & 175 Consisting Budha (Part) (Part) of 14 feet Colony, 9 inch x Thana 11 feet No.4 having total area of 177 square feet over Which a pucca shop Katra, bearing No. G-2 is situated. 4. The Plaintiff’s case in brief is that in East Boring Canal Road, Patna, the defendant along with his brothers owned 11 Katha 9 dhoors 10 dhurki of land of survey plot no. 172, 173, 174 and 175 under khata no.14155 and 588, bearing Tauzi no.5225 / 14844. The defendant and his brothers entered into an agreement with a Builder “M/s Tinkues Krishna Deo Vihar Apartment” to construct a multistoried building on five kathas of the land only. The defendant was allotted shop nos. G-6, G-5, G-2 and B-2 with Car parking no.1 in the constructed apartment known as “Tinkues Kishundeo Vihar residential and commercial multistoried complex” towards his share. 5. The petitioner-defendant agreed to sell the shop bearing no. G2 to petitioner / respondent for a consideration money of Rs. 1,50,450/-. On receipt of the money, the defendant executed a Baibeyana deed (deed of agreement for sale) in favour of plaintiff no.1 on 02.03.2005. 5. The petitioner-defendant agreed to sell the shop bearing no. G2 to petitioner / respondent for a consideration money of Rs. 1,50,450/-. On receipt of the money, the defendant executed a Baibeyana deed (deed of agreement for sale) in favour of plaintiff no.1 on 02.03.2005. It is the case of the plaintiffs that subsequently on insistence of defendant, he agreed to pay a higher price of Rs.1,70,000/- for the shop. A sale deed was also prepared for presenting it before Registrar, Registry office, Sadar, Patna. However, at the time of presentation of the deed, the defendant backed out. 6. In spite of requests, the defendant on one pretext or the other avoided presentation of document for registration. The plaintiffs smelt something foul and were left with no alternative remedy but to move in suit for specific performance of contract. 7. During the proceedings of the suit, the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a compromise and filed a joint compromise petition dated 23.02.2007 in respect of the suit property, detailed in paragraph-1. The parties stated therein that the defendant has admitted that he had entered into an agreement for sale of his shop Katra measuring an area of 14 feet 9 inch x 11 feet totaling 177 square feet, bearing no.G-2 appertaining to khata no. 14,155 and 588 (part) S.P. No. 172, 173, 174 and 175 (part) having Tauzi no. 525 situated at Mauza Duzara, Budha Colony, Patna with plaintiff no.1 on 02.03.2005. 8. In Paragraph (ii) of the compromise petition it has been averred that the defendant received the entire consideration money of Rs.1,70,000/- from the plaintiff no.1 and has agreed to execute sale deed in respect of the suit shop in favour of plaintiff no.2 (wife of petitioner no.1). But unfortunately the sale deed could not be presented before the Registrar on23.08.2006 for its execution. In paragraph 4, it was stated that defendant now agrees to execute the sale deed and as such there is no need to proceed with the suit on merit. The suit was decreed on 04.04.2007 in terms of compromise petition and a decree was accordingly prepared. 9. An Execution case no. 08 of 2007 was filed for enforcement of the decree. The suit was decreed on 04.04.2007 in terms of compromise petition and a decree was accordingly prepared. 9. An Execution case no. 08 of 2007 was filed for enforcement of the decree. At this state, the plaintiffs/ respondents realized that Tauzi number has not been correctly mentioned in schedule attached to plaint, compromise petition and decree, in so much so that Tauzi no.525 was typed in place of Tauzi no.5225. Furthermore, plot number 174, which formed one of the four plots on which apartment was constructed and housed the shop no.G-2, was not mentioned in the schedule to the plaint, though it was correctly mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint as well as in compromise petition and decree. 10. The plaintiffs, thus, filed a petition under Section 152 and 153 of C.P.C. on 01.12.2007 for due correction in schedule-1 attached to the plaint, compromise petition and decree. 11. The defendant / petitioner opposed the petition and filed a rejoinder. According to him, the correction was not clerical in nature. Secondly, no correction in compromise decree consequent to compromise petition can be made without the consent of the other side. The defendant stated that the compromise was arrived under misrepresentation of facts. 12. The trial court, after hearing the parties held that non-mentioning of plot no.174 in Schedule-1 and incorrect mentioning of Tauzi no. 525 in place of 5225, which mistake also occurred subsequently in compromise petition was clerical and accidental slip of pen. The trial court allowed the application under Section 152 and 153 of C.P.C. of the plaintiffs / respondents. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiffs brought a suit for specific performance of contract for sale against defendant-petitioner in respect of said shop bearing no. G-2. The description of the shop has been correctly mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint. In paragraph thereof, it has been stated that the defendant owns and possesses shop Katra No. G-2, in East Boring Canal Road, Patna built on amalgamated plot no. 172, 173, 174 and 175 under khata no.14155 and 588, Tauzi no.5225 / 14844, in Tinkues Kishundeo Vihar residential and commercial Complex. 14. In Paragraph 2, the descriptions of all four plot nos. 172, 173, 174 and 175 have been stated correctly. 172, 173, 174 and 175 under khata no.14155 and 588, Tauzi no.5225 / 14844, in Tinkues Kishundeo Vihar residential and commercial Complex. 14. In Paragraph 2, the descriptions of all four plot nos. 172, 173, 174 and 175 have been stated correctly. It is further stated in paragraph 2, that the defendant and his brothers jointly owned the plots and entered into an agreement with the builder “M/s Tinkues Krishna Deo Vihar Apartment” to construct an apartment. The shop no. G2, which is the subject matter of the suit, along with G-5 and B-2 with car parking was allotted to the defendant. 15. However, in the Schedule attached to the plaint, the plot no.174 does not find mention and Tauzi number was mentioned as 525 in place of 5225. The other details tallied with the relief sought for in the plaints. Schedule-1 appended to the plaint is being also reproduced herein below for easy reference: SCHEDULE-1 Mauza Tauzi No. Khata No. S.P. No. Area Duzara 525 14,155 172, 173 One Shop P.S. 14844 & 588 & 175 Consisting Budha (Part) (Part) of 14 feet Colony, 9 inch x Thana 11 feet No.4 having total area of 177 square feet over Which a pucca shop Katra, bearing No. G-2 is situated. 16. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and defendant admitted that the plaintiff has paid the required money for execution of sale of G-2 plot described in paragraph 1 of the compromise petition. The defendant further agreed to execute plot in question. However in compromise petition Tauzi number was incorrectly mentioned as 525 in place of 5225. Except for aforesaid error,details of the property in compromise petition correctly mentioned plot no. as Survey Plot nos. 172, 173, 174 and 175 appertaining to khata no.14155 and 588 (part), the shop number as well as its area, the locality and the Apartment in which it was housed. A decree was passed and prepared in terms of the compromise petition. 17. The error, which cropped in compromise petition also manifested in the decree to the extent that tauzi number was incorrectly mentioned as 525 instead of 5225. An execution case bearing Execution case no.08 of 2007 was filed for execution of the decree. The plaintiffs-respondents then realized that Tauzi number has been incorrectly mentioned in the compromise decree as 525 in place of 5225. An execution case bearing Execution case no.08 of 2007 was filed for execution of the decree. The plaintiffs-respondents then realized that Tauzi number has been incorrectly mentioned in the compromise decree as 525 in place of 5225. The Plaintiffs-petitioners, thus filed an application under Sections 152 and 153 (Annexure-3) for correction of the error in compromise petition and schedule attached to the plaint. 18. The case of defendant-petitioner is that a civil court under Section 152 and 153 C.P.C. cannot correct an error in compromise petition without the consent of the other side. The defendant submits that he is willing to hand over what has been ordered in the compromise decree. The petitioner-defendant, while assailing the impugned order allowing the application under Sections 152 and 153 of C.P.C., relied upon decisions in case of Smt. Sooraj Devi Vs. Pyare Lal and Ano., reported in AIR 1981 SC 736 ; Umesh Chandra Karan & Ors. Vs. Shail Kumari Devi, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 553 . 19. On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submits that the plots are identifiable, the locality is identifiable, the apartment constructed is identifiable, so too the shop no. G-2 in the Apartment. According to them, the error is clerical arising out of slip of pen and the trial court rightly allowed the application for corrections of errors under Sections 152 and 153 of C.P.C. Learned counsel in support of his submissions relied upon decisions reported in Narhari Balku Navade (deceased by LRs.) & Ors. Vs. Hanmanta Timma Pujari (deceased by LRs.) & Ors., reported in AIR 2004 Bombay 342, Mohinder Singh and Ors. Vs. Teja Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1979 P & H 47, Niyamat Ali Molla V. Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors, reported in AIR 2008 SC 225 , Ayodhi Yadav & Anr. Vs. Gobind Yadav & Ors., reported in 2006(3) PLJR 353 and 1994 SCC 368 . 20. Before discussing the judgments relied upon by the parties, it would be relevant to notice 152 and 153 of C.P.C., which are quoted herein below: “152. Amendment of Judgments, decrees or orders.- Clerical or arithmetical mistakes 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.” 21. Amendment of Judgments, decrees or orders.- Clerical or arithmetical mistakes 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.” 21. Section 152 C.P.C. permits a Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties to correct at any time any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors consequent to any accidental slip or omission. 22. Section 153 C.P.C. reads as follows: “153. General power to amend.- The Court may, at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding.” 23. Section 153 empowers a Court, if it finds appropriate, may on such terms amend any defect or error in a suit for determining the real issue. 24. Now I will examine one by one the decisions relied by the parties. First of all, I would take up the cases referred by the petitioner / defendant. 25. In case of Umesh Chandra Karan (Supra), the court was examining whether omission to decide and not to award mesne profit in the judgment does not come under the clerical mistake or accidental omission and as such, judgment and decree with regard to the omission of mesne profit cannot be corrected under Section 152 of C.P.C. The decision thereof would not be applicable in the instant case, as the facts are different. 26. The petitioner next relied upon a judgment reported in case of Smt. Sooraj Devi (Supra). The learned Judge while examining the scope of Section 362 and 482 of Cr.P.C observed that a clerical or arithmetical error is an error occasioned by an accidental slip or omission of the Court. It represents that which the court never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its discovery on argument or disputation. The arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing. It represents that which the court never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its discovery on argument or disputation. The arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing. In the aforesaid case, the applicant sought that the earlier order of the High Court directing restoration of possession of the property to the respondent be clarified by a declaration that it was not binding on her and did not affect her possession, which allegations was disputed by the respondent. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the controversy could not be brought within the description of “clerical or arithmetical error”. In fact, the applicant was asking for adjudication that the right to possession alleged by her remained unaffected by the earlier order. In the aforesaid circumstance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the inherent power of the Court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code. The facts and issues involved in this case has no semblance with the above mentioned case. 27. On the other hand, the plaintiffs-respondents amongst other cases has placed reliance upon an order of learned Single Judge of this Court, in case of Ayodhi Yadav and Ano. Vs. Gobind Yadav & Ors., reported in 2006(3) PLJR 353. The plaintiff Ayodhi Yadav instituted suit for a permanent injunction against the defendants for restraining them from interfering with his possession and / or making any construction over the suit land. The plaintiff had claimed in all six decimals of land consequent to registered agreement dated 17.10.1975 with defendant no.1. The suit was allowed and a decree was prepared in favour of plaintiff / petitioner. It was mentioned in the decree that the area of Schedule-A land was 0.0206 hectares. Later on, it was realized by the plaintiff that the total area for which the suit was instituted was 6 decimals but by mistake in the plaint, the area on conversion to hectares was wrongly shown as 0.0206 hectares, which in fact is equivalent to 05 decimals only. An application under Sections 152 and 153 C.P.C. was filed before the trial court for correction of the area on conversion into hectares, as the mistake was purely arithmetical. The trial court rejected the application. An application under Sections 152 and 153 C.P.C. was filed before the trial court for correction of the area on conversion into hectares, as the mistake was purely arithmetical. The trial court rejected the application. The learned Single Judge observed that Section 152 and 153 C.P.C. vest power in the court to correct mathematical error in the plaint, which otherwise would cause injustice to the affected party. The learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of trial court directed for correction of the arithmetical error. 28. The respondent next relied upon a judgment in case of Narhari Balku Kavade (Supra). In the aforesaid case, the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession but however, incorrect survey number of suit property was mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiff had mentioned correct survey plot in his deposition and in map annexed to the plaint. Even the defendants were fully aware that the decree for possession was sought in respect of land bearing that survey number. The Bombay High Court, as such observed that there was an accidental error or slip in describing the correct survey plot number in the plaint and the said error can be corrected by exercising power under Sections 152 and 153 of C.P.C. 29. The plaintiffs-respondents also made reference to case of Mohinder Singh & Ors (Supra) reported in AIR 1979 P & H 47, particularly para.8. In the aforesaid case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that though the court cannot go into the disputed question regarding the principles of dispute under Section 152 C.P.C., but if a mistake is so palpable that nobody can possibly have any doubt as to what the parties meant or what the Court meant when it passed judgment, decree or order, such correction can be made under Section 152 C.P.C. 30. The plaintiffs-respondents next referred to case of Niyamat Ali Molla (Supra), wherein, the plaintiff filed suit for possession and declaration of title. The defendant did not file written statement, however, he examined himself as a witness. The suit was decreed. No appeal was preferred against the said judgment and decree. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed application for amendment of the plaint as also of the decree containing the schedule describing the said property. The defendant did not file written statement, however, he examined himself as a witness. The suit was decreed. No appeal was preferred against the said judgment and decree. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed application for amendment of the plaint as also of the decree containing the schedule describing the said property. The objection of the defendant that the application for amendment, if allowed, would amount to substitution of a property by another as well as to change of G.L. number in schedule, was rejected by the executing court and affirmed up to the High Court. The defendant took the matter in appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court. After hearing the parties, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that inherent power is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under Section 152 of C.P.C. but also inherent power in general. The Court also have a duty to see that the records are true and present the correct state of affairs. A decree may, therefore, be corrected by the Court both in exercise of its power under Section 152 as also 151 C.P.C. While deciding the dispute, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that it is not a case where the defendants could have been misled. The pleadings of the parties are to be read in their entirety and are to be construed liberally and not in a pedantic manner. It is also not a case where by reason of an amendment, one property is being substituted by another. The statements contained in the body of the plaint sufficiently described the suit lands. Only because some blanks in the Schedule of the property have been left, the same, by itself, may not be a ground to deprive the plaintiffs from the fruit of the decree. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that only G.L number was missing and the same by itself would not be a ground to interfere with the order of the executing court in allowing correction of Schedule of the property in decree. 31. In the instant case, the plaintiffs-respondents had brought a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale entered by defendant-petitioner. All the minute details of the suit shop, including the name of apartment, plot number, khata number, locality, shop no., tauzi number were correctly mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint. 31. In the instant case, the plaintiffs-respondents had brought a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale entered by defendant-petitioner. All the minute details of the suit shop, including the name of apartment, plot number, khata number, locality, shop no., tauzi number were correctly mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint. It was specifically stated that the apartment, which housed the suit shop was constructed on four plots namely plot nos. 172, 173, 174 and 175 of khata no. 14155 and 588 (part) in Mohalla Duzara, within Budha Colony police station bearing thana no. 4. However, on account of accidental error, plot number 174 was not mentioned in the schedule and furthermore, tauzi number was typed as 525 in place of 5225. Paragraph 1 of the plaint is quoted herein below: “That the defendant own and possess shop Katra No. G-2, situated at bearing amalgamated plot no. 172, 173, 174 and 175 under khata no.14155 and 588, having Tauzi no.5225 / 14844, situated at “ Tinkues Kishundeo Vihar residential and commercial Complex” East Boring Canal Road, Patna, fully described in Schedule-1 at the foot of the plaint.” 32. In course of the proceeding the parties entered into compromise and all the descriptions of the suit shop was correctly mentioned, save and except for tauzi number, which was incorrectly mentioned as 525 in place of 5225. With the result that the compromise decree was also beset with the said error. Paragraph 1 of compromise petition is quoted herein below: “1(i) The defendant has admitted that he had entered into an agreement for sale of his shop Katra measuring an area of 14 feet 9 inch x 11 feet total 177 square feet bearing no.G-2 appertaining to khata no. 14,155 and 588 (part) S.P. No. 172, 173, 174 and 175 (part) having Tauzi no. 525 situated at Mauza Duzara, Budha Coloney, Patna with plaintiff no.1 on 02.03.2005”. 33. Thus the error cropping up in the schedule to the plaint would be a clerical error, as the details of the suit shop was correctly mentioned in paragraph-1 of the plaint occasioned on account of accidental slip of pen or typing. In compromise petition, the error was limited to penning of correct tauzi number as 525 in place of tauzi number 5225. There cannot be any doubt that the Court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to review its judgment. In compromise petition, the error was limited to penning of correct tauzi number as 525 in place of tauzi number 5225. There cannot be any doubt that the Court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to review its judgment. It cannot exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake or slip occurred in the decree or order. Here the error was entirely clerical in nature, as the identity of the suit shop was never in doubt. The error that cropped up does not require any enquiry, much less any roving enquiry for its discovery. The error if corrected would not amount to substitution of the suit shop by another suit shop. 34. It is not the case of the defendant that Budha Colony locality in which the Apartment was constructed contains a tauzi number bearing Tauzi no. 525. The plot numbers and khata mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint and in the compromise petition pertained to Tauzi no.5225 in Budha colony. It is also not the case of defendant/ petitioner that he owns land in Tauzi no.525 of Budha colony or any other locality. Thus it leaves no manner of doubt as to the identity of the suit shop, the parties were litigating for. In case of Niyamat Ali Molla (Supra), the suit property did not contain the G.L. number in the schedule. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that merely because some details of the property is missing in the schedule, the same would not deprive the plaintiff from the fruit of the decree. The Hon’ble apex Court, thus, allowed correction in the decree and consequently in the plaint. 35. The power of the Court under Sections 152 and 153 of C.P.C. would not be limited only to amending any defect or error in any proceeding of a suit, but would confer power on the court to even correct clerical error in the compromise petition for determining the real question and issue. However, error cropping in compromise petition without the consent of the other side cannot be corrected, which would change the identity of suit property or nature of agreement arrived between the parties and the conditions attached to it. In the instant case, in compromise petition all minute details of the suit shop was correctly mentioned except for tauzi number, which was mentioned as 525 in place of 5225. In the instant case, in compromise petition all minute details of the suit shop was correctly mentioned except for tauzi number, which was mentioned as 525 in place of 5225. The error would be an accidental slip of pen or error which has cropped in process of typing. 36. The petitioner-defendant admitted that he had executed Baibeyana and he is willing to register the same. The Baibeyana undisputedly was in respect of shop no. G-2 of Apartment constructed on plot nos. 172, 173, 174 and 175 of khata nos. 14155 and 588 (part) measuring 177 sq. feet in Mauza Duzara, Budha colony. Amendment was rightly allowed, as all other details unmistakenly referred to the suit shop, which formed subject matter of dispute. None rectification of such error, wholly clerical and typographical in nature would have prevented the plaintiffs from benefits, which the defendant subsequently acceded to in terms of the compromise petition. 37. In such circumstances, the power under Sections 152 and 153 of C.P.C. would also extend to correction of clerical error in compromise petition even at the instance of one party, if identity of the suit property is not in dispute and does not at all substitute the subject matter of the dispute rather facilitate in sorting out the real issue. As such the order of trial court allowing the amendment cannot be faulted with. 38. A little more alertness on behalf of plaintiffs’/respondents would have averted error in schedule and compromise petition and a battle upto this Court. In the circumstances, the order of trial court is affirmed with the condition that plaintiffs/respondents would deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- in trial in favour of petitioner/defendant. 39. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.