JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - CM No. 29315.CII of 2010 This is application for bringing on record legal representatives of Narain Singh since deceased who himself was one of the legal representatives of Umrao defendant no. 7 since deceased. It is alleged in the application that Narain Singh has left behind widow and two sons mentioned in paragraph no. 1 of the application as his only legal heirs. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly, the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and persons mentioned in paragraph no. 1 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of Narain Singh since deceased for the purpose of this revision petition. CM No. 21703.CII of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. CM No. 21704.CII of 2011 2. This is application for impleading legal representatives of respondent no. 1 – Gian Chand Gupta, respondent no. 3 – Naresh Chand Gupta, respondent no. 5 – Surender Kumar Gupta, respondent no. 13 – Satish Kumar and respondent no. 17 – Giano, alleging that persons mentioned in sub paragraphs no. (a), (b), ( c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 2 of the application are respectively the only legal heirs of the aforesaid deceased respondents. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly, the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and persons mentioned in sub paragraphs no. (a), (b), ( c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 2 of the application are ordered to be impleaded as legal representatives respectively of respondents no. 1,3,5,13 and 17 since deceased for the purpose of this revision petition. Necessary correction in the memo of parties be made by the office. CR No. 7416 of 2010 3. Defendant no. 6 Lala Ram has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 16.1.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal thereby allowing application of plaintiffs for correction of judgment and decree of the trial court. Suit was filed in respect of 3 kanals 19 marlas land of khasra no. 18/1 (3-9) and khasra no. 17/2 (0-10). In the application, it was alleged by the plaintiffs that correct khasra no. is 17/3 instead of 17/2. Necessary correction for the same was sought. 4. Suit was filed in respect of 3 kanals 19 marlas land of khasra no. 18/1 (3-9) and khasra no. 17/2 (0-10). In the application, it was alleged by the plaintiffs that correct khasra no. is 17/3 instead of 17/2. Necessary correction for the same was sought. 4. Contesting defendants in their reply alleged that the aforesaid error was made deliberately by the plaintiffs in the plaint to harass the defendants. Some other pleas were also raised. 5. Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 16.1.2010 allowed plaintiffs’ application for correction of judgment and decree. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 6 has filed this revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that decree of the trial court had merged in decree of first appellate court and therefore, trial court could not have allowed correction of judgment and decree of the trial court. 8. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contended that clerical error in mentioning khasra no. 17/2 instead of 17/3 has not been denied by the contesting defendants and therefore, necessary correction has been rightly allowed. 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Even contesting defendants in their reply admitted that there is a mistake in mentioning khasra number. It is, thus, undisputed that correct khasra number is 17/3 instead of 17/2. Plea of contesting defendants that the error was made deliberately in the plaint by the plaintiffs cannot be accepted because plaintiffs would not gain anything by doing so. On the other hand, the plaintiffs themselves would suffer on account of the error. Since admittedly there was error in mentioning correct khasra number of the suit land, necessary correction has been rightly allowed by the trial court. Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to set aside the order which has done justice in the case by correcting an error. Setting aside of the impugned order would result in miscarriage of justice. Error in mentioning in khasra number of the suit land had to be corrected. Consequently, on the ground of alleged technicalities, impugned order of the trial court ordering necessary correction cannot be set aside. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision which is accordingly dismissed. Error in mentioning in khasra number of the suit land had to be corrected. Consequently, on the ground of alleged technicalities, impugned order of the trial court ordering necessary correction cannot be set aside. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision which is accordingly dismissed. However, as prayed for by counsel for respondents, in view of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, necessary correction to the same effect is also ordered to be made in judgment and decree of the lower appellate court by mentioning khasra no. 17/3 instead of khasra no. 17/2 so that there is no anomaly or discrepancy. ---------0.B.S.0------------