ORDER U.B. Saha, J. 1. This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the original suit No. T.S. 20 of 2010, calling in question the order, dated 15-11-2011, (Annexure P-6 to the revision petition) passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Udaipur, South Tripura in Civil Misc. No. 50 of 2011 arising out of T.S. No. 20 of 2010 whereby and where under the application under Order VI, Rule 17 and Sections 151 to 153, C.P.C. for amending the plaint as well as correcting the decree passed in the aforesaid suit in favour of the plaintiff was rejected. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the defendant-respondent. As agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the question of law involved, the instant writ petition is taken up for final disposal at this admission stage. 2. The Title Suit No. 20 of 2010 was instituted by the plaintiff, the petitioner herein. (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) against the defendant, the respondent herein, (hereinafter referred to as defendant) for specific performance of contract in respect of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint and ultimately, an ex parte decree was passed against the defendant, as he did not contest the case either by way of filing the written statement or examining him. 3. In the plaint, the plaintiff has contended that the defendant while he was in urgent need of money in the first part of October, 2009, laid a proposal to the plaintiff for selling off the suit land at a market price of Rs. 2,75,000/- (Rupees Two lac seventy five thousand only) and the plaintiff having agreed to the said proposal, paid Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash to the defendant as part payment of the said consideration money of Rs. 2,75,000/- in order to enable the defendant to mitigate his urgent financial constraints. 4. It has also been asserted in the plaint that on 12-10-2009, the defendant handed over the physical possession of the suit land, (i.e. the land proposed to be sold out), to the plaintiff with a liberty to the plaintiff to possess the same by his choice. 2,75,000/- in order to enable the defendant to mitigate his urgent financial constraints. 4. It has also been asserted in the plaint that on 12-10-2009, the defendant handed over the physical possession of the suit land, (i.e. the land proposed to be sold out), to the plaintiff with a liberty to the plaintiff to possess the same by his choice. It was assured by the defendant that he and/or his successors, in no way would disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 5. The defendant also agreed to that the plaintiff would pay the balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- within one month and on receipt of the said amount, the defendant would execute a registered sale deed for the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. 6. However, as a testament of the oral agreement between the parties, the plaintiff as well as the defendant has given effect of the said facts in writing in presence of five witnesses who subscribed their names at every pages of the said Deed. Later, in pursuance of the same, when the plaintiff approached the defendant with the balance amount of Rs. 25.000/- to be paid to him for getting a registered sale deed for the suit land in his favour, the defendant refused to execute the same in terms of the earlier agreement demanding an additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to him, beyond the settled amount. 7. Dissatisfied with the breach of terms of agreement by the defendant, the plaintiff filed the above referred suit in which an ex parte decree was passed whereby the trial Court vide judgment, dated 26-6-2010, and decree, dated 30-6-2010, directed the defendant that on receipt of the rest amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff, the defendant would execute a registered sale deed in the name of the plaintiff for the suit land described in the plaint within two months from 26-6-2010. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the learned trial Court also directed the plaintiff to hand over the balance of consideration money of Rs. 25,000/- of the suit land to the defendant in presence of the District Registrar. South Tripura, Udaipur and restrained the defendant from entering into the suit land or disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 25,000/- of the suit land to the defendant in presence of the District Registrar. South Tripura, Udaipur and restrained the defendant from entering into the suit land or disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The trial Court also held that "the plaintiff is entitled for a decree that if the defendant failed to execute the sale deed for the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint of the present suit within stipulated period of 2 (two) months from today, the sale deed will be executed by Court." 8. As the defendant did not give any positive response for compliance of the aforesaid judgment and decree as a judgment debtor, the plaintiff-decree holder ultimately filed an execution case on 12-5-2012 which was registered as execution case No. 10 of 2011 before the Trial Court for execution of the decree. 9. When the said execution case reached the final stage of execution, the plaintiff detected that the suit land cannot be identified because of unintentional typographical clerical error that for the suit land, instead of Hal Dag No. 2201/7626, the Hal Dag No. 2201/ 7616 was mentioned in the title suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff without wasting any further time filed an application registered as Civil Misc. No. 50 of 2011 before the learned Trial Court under Order VI, Rule 17, read with Sections 151 and 153, C.P.C. seeking to amend the plaint and correct the decree inserting correct survey plot number. 10. Upon receipt of the said amendment application, the defendant entered into appearance before the trial Court and also filed his written objection challenging the maintainability of the said amendment application, contending, inter alia, that the decree dated 30-6-2010 is not executable and amendment application is also patently defective and misconceived and the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the said application at that belated stage and the plaintiff had misconstrued and misinterpreted the provisions of Sections 152 and 153, C.P.C. 11. The trial Court after hearing the rival parties, rejected the prayer for amendment vide order, dated 15-11-2011, holding that amendment application is not maintainable as the petitioner had filed the same after commencement of the trial. 12. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection of the prayer for amendment of the plaint and decree, the plaintiff preferred the instant revision petition. 13. Mr. 12. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection of the prayer for amendment of the plaint and decree, the plaintiff preferred the instant revision petition. 13. Mr. Deb while urging for relief sought for would contend that the plaintiff had mentioned the relevant khatian No. 1321 with Sabek dag No. 1026 (part) and Hal Plot No. 2201/7626 in Paragraph I of the plaint which the learned Trial Court ought to have considered at the time of passing the judgment and decree. According to him, had the learned trial Court considered the same, then the said inadvertent error committed by the plaintiff in the schedule of the plaint so far as the plot number is concerned would not have been entered into the decree. 14. He further contended that the pleadings of the plaint are to be read in its entirety, not isolated, as the statements contained in the body of the plaint sufficiently described the suit land, particularly mentioning the plot number and only because of some typographical errors occurred in the schedule of the plaint relating to the suit land, the same by itself cannot be a ground to deprive the plaintiff from getting the fruit of the decree by way of rejecting the prayer for amendment when the said amendment would not go either to change the cause of action or to prejudice the defendant. 15. He further submits that error committed by the plaintiff was, in fact, detected while execution case was going to be finally decided by the executing Court and just after detection of the said clerical error, the plaintiff had filed the amendment application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Sections 151 and 153, C.P.C. before the trial Court which passed the decree to allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint as well as to correct the decree passed by the Court itself. But the Court rejected the said prayer for amendment only on the ground that the prayer for amendment was made after commencement of the trial and passing of decree. According to Mr. But the Court rejected the said prayer for amendment only on the ground that the prayer for amendment was made after commencement of the trial and passing of decree. According to Mr. Deb, such finding of the trial Court is not only contrary to the law, but also contrary to the facts involved in the instant case, as in the instant case, error committed by the plaintiff in the schedule of the plaint relating to the plot number of the suit land was detected after commencement of the trial and passing of the decree. Thus, the application for amendment cannot be filed prior to detection of the error. 16. He further submits that the whole findings of the learned trial Court is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in Tilak Raj v. Baikunthi Devi (dead) by L.Rs. (2010) 12 SCC 585 : AIR 2009 SC 2136 , wherein the Apex Court while considering a similar point as involved in the instant case noted in Para 25 of the said report that "since the Court exists to dispense justice, any mistake which is found to be clerical in nature should be allowed to be rectified by exercising inherent power vested in the Court for sub-serving the cause of justice. The principle behind the provision is that no party should suffer due to bona fide mistake. xxx " 17. He again contended that when a Court passed a decree on the basis of only one clerical error committed in the pleadings without considering the whole plaint, then the Court cannot rectify such mistake by itself unless an application is filed by the parties and when an application is filed, raising the issue, particularly, the error in the schedule of the plaint on the basis of which decree was passed, then it is the duty of the Court to rectify the decree, as the same was passed on adjudication for dispensing justice. 18. His another contention before this Court was that proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 does not prohibit the Court from allowing an amendment application, but only creates certain restriction so that the amendment should not be allowed at a belated stage, but in no way creates bar on the power of the Court. 18. His another contention before this Court was that proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 does not prohibit the Court from allowing an amendment application, but only creates certain restriction so that the amendment should not be allowed at a belated stage, but in no way creates bar on the power of the Court. The Legislature left the matter wholly with the Court as to whether an amendment petition would be allowed or not, as the Court is the best judge to take note of the relevant facts and circumstances of a case. 19. He also contended that though the Legislature amended the Order VI. Rule 17, C.P.C. by way of subsequent amendment, but no amendment has been made so far the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of the Code are concerned and in the instant case, it is the duty of the learned trial Court to exercise the power vested on it under the aforesaid Sections of the C.P.C. Mr. Deb again contended that not only the trial Court, even the appellate Court has also the power to give a direction for correction of the decree exercising the power under Section 152, C.P.C. 20. In support of his aforesaid contention, he also placed reliance on Paragraph 27 of Tilak Raj (supra) which reads as under: 27. We feel that if we direct the appellant to seek remedy under the provisions of Section 152, CPC, it will only delay and prolong the litigation between the parties. In order to cut short the litigation and to save precious time of the Court as also to give quietus to the entire dispute, we direct in exercise of the powers under Section 152, CPC that the degree be corrected by giving the correct Khasra No. 26-R/52 in place of Khasra No. 25-R/52. 21. He also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. and others, (2007) 13 SCC 421 : AIR 2008 SC 225 , particularly, paragraphs 19 and 25 of the said Report. For better appreciation, the same are reproduced hereunder : 19. The Code of Civil Procedure recognizes the inherent power of the Court. It is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under Section 152 of the Code but also inherent power in general. For better appreciation, the same are reproduced hereunder : 19. The Code of Civil Procedure recognizes the inherent power of the Court. It is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under Section 152 of the Code but also inherent power in general. The Courts also have duty to see that the records are true and present the correct state of affairs. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the Court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to review its judgment. It cannot also exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake or slip occurred in the decree or order. This provision, in our opinion, should, however, not be construed in a pedantic manner. A decree may, therefore be corrected by the Court both in exercise of its power under Section 152 as also under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a power of the Court is well recognized. 20. xxx to 24. xxx 25. It is not a case where the defendants could be said to have been misled. It is now well settled that the pleadings of the parties are to be read in their entirety. They 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 the other. If the Court has the requisite power to make an amendment of the decree, the same would not mean that it had gone beyond the decree or passing any decree. The statements contained in the body of the plaint have 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 respondents from the fruit of the decree. If the appellant herein did not file any written statement, he did so at its own peril. Admittedly, he examined himself as a witness in the case. He, therefore, was aware of the issues raised in the suit. It is stated that an Advocate Commissioner has also been appointed. We, therefore, are of the opinion that only because the JL numbers in the schedule were missing, the same by itself would not be a ground to interfere with the impugned order. 22. Mr. He, therefore, was aware of the issues raised in the suit. It is stated that an Advocate Commissioner has also been appointed. We, therefore, are of the opinion that only because the JL numbers in the schedule were missing, the same by itself would not be a ground to interfere with the impugned order. 22. Mr. Deb finally placed reliance on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cherukuwada Vijaya Laxmi v. Veluri Sitapathi and others, 2004 (3) Civil LJ 30 : AIR 2004 (NOC) 201 (AP), wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court, considering the decision of the Apex Court in Sheodhyan Singh v. Mussamma Sanicharakver, AIR 1963 SC 1879 as well as one of its earlier decision in Narkulla Venkayya and another v. Noona Satyavarayana and Anr., AIR 1959 AP 360 , noted in Paras 10, 11, 13 and 17 of the said report as under : 10. From the above legal position, it is made clear that when the identity of the property is not in dispute and when the boundaries and the extent are tallying with the misdescription of a particular survey number or plot number or non-mentioning of a survey number will not have any effect. 11. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Narkulla Venkayya and another v. Noona Satyavarayana and another. AIR 1959 AP 360 , wherein in Para 10. it is observed that a mistake committed by the plaintiff in entering the correct acreage in relation to a particular survey number, which was incorrectly entered as different survey number due to sheer inadvertence of giving description of the survey number in the gift deed. When admittedly the executant was not in possession of other survey number, it can be treated only as a mistake. 12. xxxx 13. Though the mistake is due to inadvertence of both parties in noticing that the schedule land is situated in two survey numbers and as they were under a bona fide impression that the entire land is situated in survey No. 155/1, they mentioned the same to that effect. Therefore, there is no scope to draw any other interpretation regarding the intention of the parties in relation to the land involved in the transaction. Therefore, there is no scope to draw any other interpretation regarding the intention of the parties in relation to the land involved in the transaction. The survey number, which was noticed by the Commissioner, could not be mentioned in the plaint schedule since it was not mentioned in the agreement of sale. Since it is an undisputed fact that the Survey No. 154/2 is also part of the schedule land, it can be safely concluded that the parties failed to mention the said number due to inadvertence. Therefore, the request of the revision petitioner can be considered favourably. 14. xxx to 16. xxx 17. In the light of the above discussion, I hold that the order of the lower Court cannot sustain and I find sufficient force in grounds of revision. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The lower Court is directed to permit the revision petitioner to amend the plaint and consequently the Court shall direct that the schedule of the decree be suitably amended. Each party to bear their own costs. 23. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior Counsel for the defendant respondent while resisting the prayer of the petitioner in the instant revision petition submits that the power of the Court for allowing the prayer for amendment of the plaint as well as decree is power of equity and not a substantive power and such equitable power can be exercised when a person approaches the Court for amendment with clean hands and not otherwise. According to him, in the instant case, the plaintiff in its schedule corrected the typographical mistake by hand. Thereafter, it cannot be said that the said mistake was a clerical error, and the plaintiff is trying to change the suit land by way of amendment of the plaint as well as decree, which is not permissible under law. 24. Learned senior Counsel further urges that the defendant respondent did not contest the case considering the plot of land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. Now when the plaintiff petitioner by way of amending the plaint wants to incorporate a plot of land in the schedule which actually belongs to the defendant, there is no other option before him except to raise objection before the trial Court against the prayer for amendment and the trial Court has rightly acted on the said objection while rejected the prayer for amendment. 25. 25. He also submits that in a suit for specific performance of contract, mentioning the boundary of the suit land is necessary as per Order VII, Rule 3, CPC, but the same has not been mentioned in the instant suit. As a result, the suit land cannot be identified and unless the suit land is identified, the same cannot be altered by way of giving certain particulars on completion of trial. 26. He further contended that though the decree was passed by the trial Court for specific performance of contract relating to a plot No. 2201/7616, but the plaintiff being decree holder filed application under Order XXI, Rule 34, C.P.C. wherein he has mentioned the plot No. as Hal Dag No. 2201/ 7626 which is admittedly not the decretal land and such act of the plaintiff-decree holder, is nothing but a fraud on the Court and when the said fraud was detected by the executing Court, then only he came up with an application for amendment under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. on 25-8-2011 i.e. after almost more than three months from the date of filing of the execution case. 27. While dealing with case law cited by Mr. Deb, Mr. Chakraborty submits that the fact of those cases are totally different than the case in hand, more particularly, in the case of Tilak Raj, AIR 2009 SC 2136 (supra), the defendant of the suit has contested the suit thoroughly, but in the instant case, the defendant respondent did not contest the suit considering the suit land described in the plaint. According to him, the case of Niyamat Ali Molla, AIR 2008 SC 225 (supra) has also no application considering the fact of that case wherein the rival parties contested the suit and the suit land was identified from the other lands in view of the description of the land except the plot number which was wrongly mentioned. 28. He has finally contended that if the prayer for amendment is allowed by the Court in the interest of justice, then the defendant should be allowed to rebut the contention of the plaintiff in his plaint participating in the suit and it would be proper for the Court to direct the trial Court for a fresh trial of the suit ignoring the in executable decree. 29. Before examining the contention made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 29. Before examining the contention made by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is necessary to refer the relevant provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. as well as Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the C.P.C. which read as under : 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. 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. 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; all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding. 30. In Para 1 of the plaint, the plaintiff stated the correct plot number, stating, inter alia, that admittedly the defendant being recorded owner in possession of the land under mouja-Manubazar, R.S. Khatian No. 1321, Sabek dag No. 1026 (part). Hal Plot No. 2201/7626 area 06 acres, more fully described in the schedule to the plaint which is the suit land of the present suit and in the schedule to the plaint, the plaintiff mentioned the correct Khatian number as well as sabek dag number relating to the suit land. Hal Plot No. 2201/7626 area 06 acres, more fully described in the schedule to the plaint which is the suit land of the present suit and in the schedule to the plaint, the plaintiff mentioned the correct Khatian number as well as sabek dag number relating to the suit land. But wrongly mentioned the Hal Dag number as 2201/7616 in the schedule, though in the unregistered agreement also correct dag number was available. 31. In Khatian No. 1321, there is no plot available or mentioned as 2201/7616. Thus, it can be said that there occurred a typographical error in the schedule to the plaint though the said schedule was to be the reflection of the plaint. As the defendant did not contest the case, the trial Court passed the ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiff basing on the wrong plot number mentioned in the schedule. As a result, though the decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff, the said decree had become inexecutable due to such inadvertent error in the decree though such error had occurred in the pleadings on account of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the same got ultimately detected in the executing Court. 32. Now question arises as to whether such clerical or inadvertent error occurred in the decree due to mistake of the plaintiff in his pleadings can be amended by the trial Court in exercise of its power under O. VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. or under Sections 151, 152 and 153, C.P.C. 33. The mistake in mentioning the plot number normally should be treated as misdescription subject to the said mistake did not affect the identity of the property sold when the identity of the property sold was well established through correct number available in other documents. Misdescription in the plaint upon which, when a suit won and consequent thereto, the said misdescription or mistake repeated in the judgment and decree, such decree cannot be amended by the trial Court in exercising of its power under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. as Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. allows the parties to amend the pleading, not the decree. Any error committed in the pleadings can obviously be corrected even in the appeal, as the appeal is the continuation of the suit subject to the parties made out a case for amendment, but this Court is not exercising its appellate power. Any error committed in the pleadings can obviously be corrected even in the appeal, as the appeal is the continuation of the suit subject to the parties made out a case for amendment, but this Court is not exercising its appellate power. Thus, Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. has no application in the instant case as held by the learned Trial Court, stating, inter alia, in the order impugned, dated 15-11-2011, thus : I have also gone through the W.O. filed by the O.P. and also heard Ld. Counsel of both sides on the petition. It is an admitted fact that as per the provision of Order 6, Rule 17, Proviso 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 the trial. In this present case the plaintiff petitioner is seeking amendment of the plaint after the decree was prepared and as this is not a matter which the plaintiff could not have raised before the commencement of the trial and the laches and fault is on the part of the plaintiff petitioner itself for which he should not get any benefit. As Order 6, Rule 17 bars the amendment of the pleadings after the commencement of the trial. Hence, I am not inclined to allow the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff petitioner. 34. In the instant case, the plaintiff, i.e. the petitioner herein, admittedly could not raise the matter for amendment before commencement of the trial, as the same was detected only after passing of the decree while execution proceeding was going on. 35. Now question remains for consideration whether a judgment and decree passed on the basis of wrong plot number due to clerical error in the schedule to the plaint can be amended in exercise of power vested on the Court under Sections 151, 152 and 153, C.P.C. This aspect has not been considered by the learned Trial Court though the plaintiff, petitioner herein, made an application for amendment under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. read with Sections 151, 152 and 153, CPC although the said khatian was admittedly accepted as Ext. 2 showing the defendant as ryoti of the suit land. 36. 2 showing the defendant as ryoti of the suit land. 36. On scrutiny of the judgment in the suit, it appears that the plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral contract on 12-10-2009 that the defendant will sell the suit land to the plaintiff on a consideration money of Rs. 2,75,000/- on conditions that the defendant would pay Rs. 2,50,000/- at hand and the balance consideration money of Rs. 25,000/- will be paid within one month and the defendant on receipt of the balance consideration money, will execute a registered sale deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. 37. As per the aforesaid contract, on receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the plaintiff, the defendant handed over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. Later, when the plaintiff approached to the defendant with the balance consideration money, he did not perform the contract fully by way of making a registered sale deed. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the instant suit and the defendant did not contest the case even after receipt of summon from the Court together with a copy of the plaint as well as the Khatian (Ext. 2) submitted by the plaintiff, before the trial Court, but he came with an objection at the stage of amendment wherein also he did not raise any question regarding the oral contract. His objection was regarding the maintainability of the petition for amendment of the plaint and decree on the ground that the provisions of Section 152, C.P.C. are not attracted as because there is no clerical error or arithmetical mistake or omission in the judgment and decree. 38. Learned senior Counsel of the defendant at the time of hearing of this case also contended, inter alia, that the boundary of the suit land is not mentioned in the plaint as required under Order VII, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. Thus, the suit land cannot be altered by giving certain particulars on completion of the trial when such suit land is admittedly not decretal land, either by way of exercising Court's power under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. or under Section 152, CPC, particularly, when there is no accidental slip or error committed by the Court while passing the decree. 39. 39. On proper survey of Section 152 of the CPC, it appears that the said provisions has authorized a Court to amend not only the clerical error committed by the Court itself, but also the error may have occurred on the ground of mistake of the parties in their pleadings as well as the mistake in the decree occurred due to such error in the plaint being copied such mistake by the Court. 40. More so, it is the Court which is to be decided in what case such power under Sections 151, 152 and 153 C.P.C. will be exercised for doing substantial justice. In Ram Ch. Sahu v. Jamna Prasad, AIR 1935 Oudh 92 : ILR 10 Luck 496 (D), a Bench of the Oudh Chief Court held : It is the duty of every civil Court to correct any mistake in any judgment, decree or order or errors, arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. This power is granted under S. 152 and under S. 151, the Civil Court is vested with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary in the ends of justice. The language of S. 152 is wide enough to cover the correction of mistakes made by the parties themselves, and the power of the Court to make corrections necessary in the ends of justice is not confined only to powers exercisable under S. 152, but extensive powers could also be exercised under Ss. 151 and 153. 41. The aforesaid judgment of the Oudh Chief Court was subsequently considered by the Allahabad High Court in Shahzad Khan v. Ptl. Sheo Kumar, AIR 1957 All 133 , wherein while dealing with Section 152 CPC, the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court sitting in Lucknow Bench noted that 4. There is ample authority for the proposition that under S. 152 it is open to the appellate Court to correct mistakes and do justice in the case. The Court can under S. 152 amend a clerical error in a decree although the error may have occurred on account of a mistake of the parties themselves in their pleadings and this mistake in the decree was on account of its being copied from the plaint. It has further been held that in such cases it is not necessary to amend the plaint itself. It is enough to amend the decree. (Emphasis supplied) 42. It has further been held that in such cases it is not necessary to amend the plaint itself. It is enough to amend the decree. (Emphasis supplied) 42. It is also settled position that the Court should not refuse bona fide and legitimate claims for necessary amendment of judgment and decree while doing the substantial justice and obviously should not permit, mala fide and dishonest amendment, if any, sought for, for which Court has been provided inherent power by the Legislature so that the Court can rectify its own record. 43. In the case of Bela Debi v. Bon Behary Roy and Ors., AIR 1952 Calcutta 86, the question came up before the Calcutta High Court as to whether mistake anterior of the suit can be rectified in exercise of power under Section 152 C.P.C. The Court ultimately taking note of the fact that there is a diversity of the judicial opinion as to how far a Court can go in rectifying its own decree and ultimately held thus : 19. It will thus be seen that there is a diversity of judicial opinion as to how far a Court can go in rectifying its own decree. Where, of course, the amendment is in order to carry out its own meaning, there is no doubt about the power of the Court in effecting such corrections (see In re St. Nazaire Co., (1879) 12 Ch D 88; Preston Banking Co. v. Allsop, (1895) 1 Ch. 141). Nor can it be disputed that it has power to rectify mistakes which are of a ministerial kind (see Mellor v. Swire, (1885) 30 Ch D 239). But the difficulty arises when it is found that the mistake is not one of the Court but is a mistake of the parties themselves. Mistakes in the description of properties in deeds, is illustrative of this kind of mistake. It is the parties who have made the mistake, and the mistake is continued in the pleadings and the decree. According to one view, S. 152 is confined to acts of the Court and, therefore, mistakes of parties made in the pleadings or deeds and documents evidencing the transaction cannot be corrected, (Ramchander Sarup v. Mazhar Hussain, AIR 1919 All 264). The second view is that under this section and S. 151, plaint, judgment and decree all can be amended (see Shiam Lal v. Mt. The second view is that under this section and S. 151, plaint, judgment and decree all can be amended (see Shiam Lal v. Mt. Moona Kuar, AIR 1934 Oudh 352 at p. 354; Ram Chandra v. Jamna Prasad, AIR 1935 Oudh 92). A third view is that it is permissible under such circumstances to amend the decree and it is unnecessary to amend the plaint, (Badri Pande v. Chhangur Pandey, AIR 1933 All 102; Jamini Bala Biswas v. Bank of Chettinad Ltd., AIR 1935 Rang 522 at p. 523). Lastly, there is the view, which I have already noted, which goes to the extent of holding that the Court cannot only rectify pleadings and decrees but rectify documents evidencing the transactions themselves; upon which the suit was founded. 20. I shall now state, what in my opinion, is the true meaning of S. 152, Civil P.C. I am not in favour of giving a narrow construction to S. 152. I do not agree that S. 152 must necessarily refer to an 'accidental slip or omission' of the Court itself, or its ministerial officers. It does not say so in the section itself, and should not be interpreted as such. Where it is the Court's own accidental slip or omission, or that of its, ministerial officers, there can be no doubt that the section applies. But it gives power to rectify any accidential slip or omission in a judgment, decree or order, and might include an accidental slip or omission traceable to the conduct of the parties themselves. But it must be an 'accidental slip or omission'. A mistake made by the parties in a deed upon which the suit is founded, and repeated in the judgment, decree or order, may or may not be an 'accidental slip or omission'. Where it is clear, that such is the case, then I do not see why the Court cannot set it right. In doing so, what is going to be rectified is, the judgment decree or order, and it is not at all necessary to rectify either the pleadings or the deed. In making such corrections, however, the Court can only proceed on the footing that there could be no reasonable doubt as to what it really intended to say in its judgment decree or order. It cannot go into any disputed questions. In making such corrections, however, the Court can only proceed on the footing that there could be no reasonable doubt as to what it really intended to say in its judgment decree or order. It cannot go into any disputed questions. If there is a particular description of a property in a deed, and a suit has been instituted on the strength of that description, and a decree passed, it is not permissible in proceedings under S. 152 to go into disputed questions as to what property was intended to be dealt with, by the parties in the deed. I agree with Gentle C.J. that such a question can only be dealt with, in appropriate proceedings under the Specific Relief Act (see T.M. Rama Krishnan Chettiar V.G. Ramakrishnan Chettiar, AIR 1948 Mad 13. But it may so happen that the 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 its judgment decree or order. For example, suppose in a conveyance a property is described as 24 Chowringhee Road, Bhawanipur'. It would be clear to everybody what property was meant, and it cannot be seriously doubted that in stating that the property was in 'Bhawanipur'. It would be clear to everybody what property was meant, and it cannot be seriously doubted that in stating that the property was in 'Bhawanipur', the parties had committed an 'accidental slip or omission'. In such a case, I would not go to the extent of holding that the Court has no power to correct the judgment, decree or order which has repeated the mistake. In doing so, the Court need not correct the pleadings or the document but its own decision. In my opinion, it is not necessary in such a case to amend the pleadings or to rectify the deed, therefore, no question arises as to whether the Court has power to do so. It is, however, quite clear that such cases must be of rare occurrence, and the scope thereof is severely limited. The power cannot be extended to the resolving of controversial points, and a decision as to parties intended or did not intent to do. Apart from this exceptional case, I hold that the Court cannot correct errors anterior to the proceedings before it. The power cannot be extended to the resolving of controversial points, and a decision as to parties intended or did not intent to do. Apart from this exceptional case, I hold that the Court cannot correct errors anterior to the proceedings before it. For such a purpose, the proper proceeding is by way of a suit under S. 31, Specific Relief Act. To this extent, I agree respectfully with the view enunciated by Gentel C.J. in T.M. Ramakrishnan Chettiar v. G. Radhakrishnan Chettiar, AIR 1948 Mad 13 and the view expressed by Young J. in Shujaatmand Khan v. Gobind Behari, AIR 1934 All 100 (2). Applying these principles to the facts of this case, I think that the rectification asked for is impossible. If there has been a mistake in the original agreement it is a mistake which is fundamental, and it is impossible without going into evidence, to decide as to what the parties meant. There are facts in favour of the contention put forward by either party and I cannot describe it as an error (if there is at all any error) as can be called "accidental slip or omission" as contemplated in S. 152. In any event, such slips or omissions cannot be rectified in proceedings under S. 152 or even under S. 151 of the Code. 44. In Kommapalle Narayana Reddy and others v. Kalvapalle Venkatramanappa and others, AIR 1966 AP 329 , the learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court while considering the Sections 151 and 152 C.P.C. noted that "A plain and inexcusable error in a decree must, unless the law clearly forbids it, be corrected by the Court. That, I conceive to be one of the fundamental duties of a Court and one of the main reasons why the Courts are clothed with inherent powers. Of course, a Court will not try to correct an error in a decree however egregious it be, if the law prevents it from doing so. But, in the present case, the error of passing a decree against the Government when the plaintiff had not asked for any relief whatsoever against the Government can well be brought within the purview of Ss. 152 and 153, C.P.C. I can also be cured in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court under S. 151 C.P.C. If the error was not so cured, injustice would have been done. 152 and 153, C.P.C. I can also be cured in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court under S. 151 C.P.C. If the error was not so cured, injustice would have been done. I am not therefore satisfied that there is any good reason for finding fault with the lower appellate Court in dismissing the suit against the Government." 45. In the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court also noted that "courts of law cannot be reduced to places of gamble, but must be looked upon as fountains of justice where sheer technical procedure will whenever possible be made to yield to the substantial ends of justice." 46. In the instant case, the learned trial Court has only visited to the technical part of the Or. VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. not for doing justice in exercising its power under Sections 151, 152 and 153 C.P.C. though such power is vested on a Court to do substantial justice. More so, it is the admitted position that in the first paragraph of the plaint, the plaintiff, petitioner herein, has stated the correct plot number and the khatian number of the suit land which has already been accepted as Exbt. 2 and the incorrect plot number mentioned in the schedule to the plaint is wholly missing in the said khatian. 47. The learned trial Court has failed to consider that aspect that in the schedule of the plaint itself, the aforesaid khatian number was mentioned, thus it was the duty of the trial Court to consider that the suit land is the part of the land of the aforesaid khatian. 48. In Janakirama Iyer v. Nilakanta Iyer, AIR 1962 SC 633 , the Apex Court held that inadvertent or clerical mistakes in the decree can be corrected by the High Court under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil -Procedure even during the pendency of an appeal in the Supreme Court. A full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had also taken note of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in Ganesh v. Sri Ram Lalaji Mahraj Birajman Mandir and others, AIR 1973 All 116 as well as its own decision in Aziz Ullah Khan v. Court of Wards Shahjahanpur, AIR 1932 All 587 and held thus : 8. A full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had also taken note of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in Ganesh v. Sri Ram Lalaji Mahraj Birajman Mandir and others, AIR 1973 All 116 as well as its own decision in Aziz Ullah Khan v. Court of Wards Shahjahanpur, AIR 1932 All 587 and held thus : 8. Aziz Ullah Khan's case, AIR 1932 All 587 therefore, is an authority for the proposition that such accidental mistakes, as had occurred in that case, can be corrected by the Court, apart from the powers exercisable under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under the powers exercisable under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if such correction is necessary for the ends of justice. Respectfully we agree with the view expressed by the learned Judges in Aziz Ullah Khan's case. AIR 1932 All 587 (supra) and affirm that view. A Division Bench of the Oudh Chief Court in Ruhulghani's case, AIR 1944 Oudh 5 (supra) also held that clerical mistakes occurring due to inadvertence in a mortgage deed giving rise to repetition of the same mistake in the plaint and the decree can be corrected in exercise of powers under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This case was also a case of incorrect description or misdescription of an item of the mortgaged property. Although in this case Aziz Ullah Khan's case was not referred to or considered, the learned Judge independently of it came to the same view as had been taken earlier by the Bench of this Court in Aziz Ullah Khan's case. Reference, however, was made to Shujaatmand Khan's case, AIR 1934 All 100 (2), but it was distinguished. Shujaatmand Khan's case was not a case of some accidental or inadvertent mistake committed by the parties. What had happened was that a mortgage deed was executed on 16th December, 1897 hypothecating eight zamindari properties. Another mortgage deed was executed in 1905 in respect of the same eight properties and also the house. In 1914 a mortgage by conditional sale was executed in respect of the eight zamindari properties and also the house besides a grove. The description of the zamindari shares and the boundaries of each item of the properties of the mortgage deed of 1914 were precisely the same as in the two earlier mortgages. In 1914 a mortgage by conditional sale was executed in respect of the eight zamindari properties and also the house besides a grove. The description of the zamindari shares and the boundaries of each item of the properties of the mortgage deed of 1914 were precisely the same as in the two earlier mortgages. Meanwhile, however, there was a Settlement in 1901, as a result of which the proportionate shares of the mortgagors in the Mahals were changed. After the passing of a preliminary decree in the suit filed on the basis of the 1914 mortgage an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed alleging that there had been a misdescription of the mortgaged shares in the mortgage deed of 1914. A prayer was made for an amendment of the plaint and the preliminary decree. The High Court held that the amendment which was sought would completely alter the plaint and the decree and also the deed on which the plaint was based. In the circumstances, the learned Judges were of the view that there was in reality no clerical mistake which could be corrected under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It will thus be seen that Shujaatmand Khan's case is clearly distinguishable on facts. There it was as a result of Settlement operations that certain changes came about in regard to the shares of the mortgagors in the Mahal. It was not a case of any clerical mistake or accidental misdescription of property due to acts or omissions of parties as in the instant case. 9. The learned counsel for the contesting judgment-debtor urged before us on the basis of reported decisions of other Courts that in the circumstances of the case the amendments prayed for could not be legally ordered either under Section 151 or 152. He replied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Ramakrishnan v. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1948 Mad 13. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, pointed out that in a later case of Krishna Poduval v. Lakshmi Nathiar, AIR 1950 Mad 751 the Madras High Court itself took a different view. The learned counsel also pointed out that the view taken by this Court in Aziz Ullah Khan's case has been followed by other High Courts. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, pointed out that in a later case of Krishna Poduval v. Lakshmi Nathiar, AIR 1950 Mad 751 the Madras High Court itself took a different view. The learned counsel also pointed out that the view taken by this Court in Aziz Ullah Khan's case has been followed by other High Courts. He referred to in this connection a decision of the Patna High Court in Jagarnath Prasad Bhagat v. Jamuna Prasad Singh, AIR 1934 Patna 493. The learned counsel for the judgment debtor also referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Kistoormall v. Sattar Mohammed, AIR 1958 Raj 276 . We, however, do not consider it necessary to discuss these cases, as, in our opinion in the circumstances of the case for the ends of justice, corrections can be made or permitted to be made in the plaint as well as the decree, as was held in Aziz Ullah Khan's case by a Division Bench of this Court and in Ruhulgani's case by the Oudh Chief Court. Besides, we may mention that the Supreme Court in Janakirama Iyer v. P.M. Nilakanta Iyer, AIR 1962 SC 633 has held that inadvertent or clerical mistakes in the decree can be corrected by the High Court under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure even during the pendency of an appeal in the Supreme Court. We are thus of opinion that under the circumstances of the instant case the two applications could be legally entertained and deserve to be allowed. 49. We are thus of opinion that under the circumstances of the instant case the two applications could be legally entertained and deserve to be allowed. 49. In Narhari Balku Kavade (deceased by L.Rs.) and others v. Hanmanta Timma Pujari (deceased by L.Rs.) and others, AIR 2004 Bom 342 , while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution considered the case of the petitioners who were the legal representatives of the original plaintiff in regular Civil Suit No. 1389 of 1978 which was initially decreed ex parte and thereafter in the writ petition, an order of remand was passed by setting aside the ex parte decree and after remand, a decree for possession was passed in favour of the original plaintiff which has admittedly attained finality and on finality of the decree, the petitioner made an application before the trial Court pointing out that in the judgment, suit property has been wrongly described as Survey No. 66/5 A instead of Survey No. 66-A/5 and prayed for effecting necessary corrections. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that in the plaint, the survey number was mentioned as Survey No. 66/5A. Thereafter, an application was made by the petitioners by invoking Section 152 of the C.P.C. praying for correcting a typing mistake in the plaint as well as in the judgment and decree passed in the said suit. The case of the petitioner in that case was that suit property is Survey No. 66A/5 of village Dobadwadi, Ghorpadi Village, Pune and by mistake in the first paragraph of the plaint and in the schedule to the plaint survey number of the property was typed as 66/5A instead of 66A/5. A contention was raised in the said application that correct survey number was mentioned in the deposition of the original plaintiff and also at various other places and the defendants in the suit were fully aware about the correct survey number which was the subject-matter of the suit. 50. While rejecting the application by passing the impugned order, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that it was not a clerical error or arithmetical mistake and as such the original plaintiff could have taken notice of the said mistake earlier and could have corrected it. 50. While rejecting the application by passing the impugned order, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that it was not a clerical error or arithmetical mistake and as such the original plaintiff could have taken notice of the said mistake earlier and could have corrected it. The learned Judge further held that the original plaintiff failed to do so, as he was not knowing the correct number of the said property and according to him, it can be said that the mistake was clerical or arithmetical mistake or accidental slip or omission. But ultimately the Bombay High Court held thus : 10. It is very clear from the record of the suit that the original plaintiff all along claimed to be the owner of survey No. 66A/5 and claimed possession of part of the said survey number. Even in the deposition of the constituted attorney of the legal representatives of the original plaintiff the said survey number is mentioned. Even from the pleading of the defendants which are on record of the suit, it is very clear that the defendants were also aware that the original plaintiff was claiming possession of survey No. 66A/5. As stated earlier, even in the map annexed to the plaint which forms part of the decree passed in the suit, survey No. 66A/5 is mentioned. It is therefore clear that reference to Survey No. 66/5A in the plaint was obviously due to an accidental or typographical mistake. 12. In the present case even the defendants were aware all along about the correct survey number of the property in respect of which decree was prayed for by the original plaintiff. Even the defendants were aware about the description of the property in respect of which decree was being prayed for and passed. It appears that there is accidental error and/or slip in describing the survey number in the suit. The said error ought to have been permitted to be corrected by the learned trial Judge by exercising powers under Section 152 read with Section 151 and Section 153 of the said Code. Merely because the petitioners have purported to apply only under Section 152 of the Code, relief cannot be denied to the petitioners. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the application made by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 51. Merely because the petitioners have purported to apply only under Section 152 of the Code, relief cannot be denied to the petitioners. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the application made by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 51. In the case of Niyamat Ali Molla ( AIR 2008 SC 225 ) (supra), the case of Bela Debi, (AIR (39) 1952 Cal 86) (supra) was considered and paragraphs 19 and 20 of the said decision have been reproduced, and finally the Apex Court in paragraph 25 of the said report stated thus "it is now well settled that the pleadings of the parties are to be read in their entirety. They 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 the other. If the Court has the requisite power to make an amendment of the decree, the same would not mean that it had gone beyond the decree or passing any decree. The statements contained in the body of the plaint have 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 respondents from the fruit of the decree. If the appellant herein did not file any written statement, he did so at its own peril." 52. In the instant case also, admittedly, in the plaint, the plaintiff mentioned the correct plot number and khatian number, and even after receipt of the said plaint, the defendant, respondent herein did not contest the case, rather allowed the plaintiff petitioner an opportunity to get an ex parte decree. Thus, according to this Court, the contention of Mr. Chakraborty that the defendant respondent did not contest the suit considering the plot number mentioned in the schedule has no force, as the defendant was very, much aware regarding the plot of land involved in the suit for which he entered into an oral agreement. 53. Thus, according to this Court, the contention of Mr. Chakraborty that the defendant respondent did not contest the suit considering the plot number mentioned in the schedule has no force, as the defendant was very, much aware regarding the plot of land involved in the suit for which he entered into an oral agreement. 53. Other contention regarding the case of Tilak Raj, ( AIR 2009 SC 2136 ) (supra) as well as Niyamat Ali Molla, ( AIR 2008 SC 225 ) (supra) that in those cases, rival party contested in the suit and the suit land was identifiable from other lands in view of the description in the suit land except the plot number which was wrongly mentioned, cannot also be accepted, as it is the defendant, who in the instant case, himself decided not to contest the case even after receipt of summon along with plaint, more so, the suit land in the instant case is also identifiable from the paragraph 1 of the plaint as well as khatian (Exbt. 2). 54. In Gulzara Singh and Ors. v. Devinder Singh and Ors., (2004) (3) Civ CC 455 (P&H), it was held : 13. Now the question arises is whether the mistake in the judgment and decree which has arisen not account of any mistake of the Court but in view of the mistake in the plaint can be corrected in exercise of the powers under Sections 152 and 153 of the Code. This question has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Pritam Singh's case wherein it has been held that a Court can under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure amend clerical error in decree although the error may have first occurred in the pleadings and it is not necessary to first amend the pleading in such a case. It was held to the following effect : The learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the decree was correctly drawn in this case according to the Khasra numbers mentioned in the plaint and as such there was no clerical or accidental error in the decree. No amendment of the decree, therefore, could be ordered under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless the mistake was first corrected in the plaint which would necessarily attract the application of the provisions of Section 153 of the Code. No amendment of the decree, therefore, could be ordered under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless the mistake was first corrected in the plaint which would necessarily attract the application of the provisions of Section 153 of the Code. The argument, however, has no merit. It is now almost a settled law that a Court can Under Section 152 of the Code amend clerical errors in a decree although the error may have first occurred in the pleadings and it is not necessary to first amend the pleadings in such a case and finally allowed the application for amendment of the judgment and decree. 55. The aforesaid decision in Gulzara Singh (supra), was subsequently followed in Mrs. Meena Kumari & Anr. v. General Public & Ors., AIR 2007 P&H 51 , 56. In Sri Dilip Kr. Chatterjee v. Sri Narayandas Mukherjee & Ors. Cal Lt. 1993 (2) HC 472 : AIR 1994 (NOC) 89 (Cal), the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court considering the earlier decision of the said High Court noted, inter alia, 20. Unfortunately, in the schedule to the plaint the suit property has been described, amongst other, as Municipal Holding No. 22 though actually the same should be Municipal Holding No. 18. Consequently, the said mistake cropped up in the body of the judgment and in the decree. 21. The said mistake was detected at the stage of delivery of possession of the suit premises from the report of the nazir. 22. The plaintiff, accordingly, made an application under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction of the schedule to the plaint, the judgment and the decree by correcting the Municipal Holding No. as 18 instead of the Municipal Holding No. 22. And ultimately held that it is a case of misdescription of the suit property and not a case of mistaken identity of the same and thus allowed the impugned order, wherein the learned Munsiff allowed the prayer for amendment of the schedule of the plaint and the judgment and decree by amending the same from Municipal Holding No. 22, to Municipal Holding No. 18, Barakuthi Road and accordingly dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner in that case. 57. 57. In the case in hand also, the plaintiff stated the correct plot number in the plaint but committed mistake while stating the same in the schedule to the plaint and ultimately, the said mistake in the schedule to the plaint cropped up in the body of the judgment and decree and same was detected during the pendency of the execution proceedings and thereafter, the plaintiff filed the petition for amendment of the judgment and decree as stated above which was rejected by the learned Trial Court and impugned herein. 58. In view of the above position of law stated by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts, there is no hesitation in the mind of this Court that the mistake committed by the plaintiff while giving the description of the plot number in the schedule to the plaint is an accidental slip or typographical error and the said error cropped up in the decree can be corrected even after the decree was passed without first amending the plaint in exercising of power under Section 152 CPC, particularly, when the suit property is identifiable for avoiding injustice and doing substantial justice. More so, a Court is also clothed with inherent power under Section 151 of C.P.C. to face such a situation. 59. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 15-11-2011 deserves to be set aside and accordingly, it is ordered. In the result, the application made by the plaintiff petitioner for correcting the judgment and decree is allowed. The learned Trial Court is directed to do the necessary amendment within two weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. 60. As due to the accidental error on the part of the plaintiff petitioner in describing the suit property, the defendant respondent has been dragged in one more litigation, it would be proper to award some costs to the plaintiff-petitioner. Accordingly, the costs are quantified at Rs. 2,500/- which would be paid by the plaintiff petitioner to the defendant respondent within a period of one month from today. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. Petition allowed