Judgment : This is an extra-ordinary case where on an affidavit of the Advocate for the claimants in an interlocutory application purportedly filed under Sections 151 to 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short “CPC”), the decree, dated 27.06.1988, in O.P.No.263 of 1986, was amended by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition are as under: Certain lands were acquired for Yeleru Reservoir Project under a Notification, dated 13.05.1981, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”). The Land Acquisition Officer has passed award, dated 15.11.1985, fixing compensation at Rs.11,000/-per acre for the land in Survey No.39/1 and Rs.6,000/-per acre for the land in Survey Nos.39/2 and 43/1. The respondents have sought for reference of dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court. It is not in dispute that the reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of Acs.15.50 cents as against the extent of Acs.17.50 cents for which the award was made. The civil Court by its judgment and decree, dated 27.06.1988, in a batch of O.Ps. enhanced the compensation to Rs.30,000/-per acre in respect of the lands in Survey No.39/1 and to Rs.20,000/-per acre in respect of the lands covered in Survey Nos.39/2 and 43/1. The said judgment and decree have become final, as no appeals were filed against the same. Curiously, almost 18 years thereafter, I.A.No.565 of 2006 in O.P.No.263 of 1986 was filed in the name of the respondents-claimants supported by an affidavit signed by their counsel wherein it is inter alia stated that while the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award for Acs.17.50 cents, the reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Act only in respect of Acs.15.50 cents and that the civil Court has enhanced the compensation only for Acs.15.50 cents and that, therefore, the decree requires to be amended by including the remaining Acs.2.00. The following amendments were sought to the decree: a) to amend the extent as Ac.17.50 cts. instead of Ac.15.50 cts. b) to amend the amount of “Rs.2,46,950.00” as “Rs.2,79,950/-“ in para 2 of the decree. c) to amend the amount of “Rs.74,085/-“ mentioned in Para.3 of the decree as “Rs.83,985/-.”. This application came up before the lower Court on 28.08.2006. The following amendments were sought to the decree: a) to amend the extent as Ac.17.50 cts. instead of Ac.15.50 cts. b) to amend the amount of “Rs.2,46,950.00” as “Rs.2,79,950/-“ in para 2 of the decree. c) to amend the amount of “Rs.74,085/-“ mentioned in Para.3 of the decree as “Rs.83,985/-.”. This application came up before the lower Court on 28.08.2006. On the same day, on which the petition was filed, the Assistant Government Pleader was given three days’ time by the Court for filing a counter affidavit. When the case camp up on 01.09.2006, further time was not granted for filing counter affidavit and on the same day a cryptic order was passed allowing the application. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. From the undisputed facts referred to above, it is evident that in the reference itself the extent of land was restricted to Acs.15.50 cents. At no point of time, during the pendency of the O.P., an application for amendment was made for adding the extent of Acs.2.00. The civil Court has also confined its adjudication to the extent of Acs.15.50 cents. As noted-above, the judgment has become final. Most surprisingly, after 18 years of the civil Court’s decree, the application was filed for amendment of the decree under Section 152 of CPC. In this context, the said provision requires to be noticed which reads as under: “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.” It is no one’s case that the judgment or the decree of the civil Court contained clerical or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. This provision has absolutely no application on the admitted facts of the case. Non-inclusion of Ac.2.00 in the reference made under Section 18 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be treated as any mistake or omission in the judicial order of the reference Court. But still, the lower Court without any application of mind whatsoever has allowed the application. In my considered opinion, the petition itself is wholly misconceived and the same is not maintainable that too 18 years after the passing of the judgment and decree. But still, the lower Court without any application of mind whatsoever has allowed the application. In my considered opinion, the petition itself is wholly misconceived and the same is not maintainable that too 18 years after the passing of the judgment and decree. The lower Court ought to have rejected the same in limini. The lower Court has thus committed a serious jurisdictional error in not only entertaining the application but also amending the decree. The whole manner in which the lower Court has allowed the application that too on the strength of the affidavit of the counsel for the parties raises a serious suspicion on its bonafides. On the very day, on which the application was filed, the same was taken up on Bench without any whisper and notice was ordered. The application was entertained without raising any objections 18 years after the judgment and decree was rendered. Mere three days’ time was granted by the lower Court for the Assistant Government Pleader to file a counter affidavit. Obviously, the lower Court was unmindful of the impossibility for filing a counter in a case where the decree was passed 18 years back. On the next date of hearing, the lower Court had hurriedly passed the order without even giving one more chance for the Assistant Government Pleader to file a counter affidavit. The order does not even contain any reasons for allowing the application. This Court feels that the above-noted circumstances leading to passing of the order by the learned Senior Civil Judge prima facieestablish lack of judicial accountability and responsibility which are the essential attributes of a Judge. A detailed probe into the conduct of the Judge is, therefore, absolutely necessary. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.No.1530 of 2012 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.