ORDER 1. Order dated 15.3.2011 passed by Civil Judge Class II in MJC No.1/2011 is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; whereby application under sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment in judgment and decree dated 8.9.2009 has been rejected. 2. The suit in question was filed by the respondents herein seeking declaration of title and possession of the property bearing NB No.27 Plot No.37/3 and 39/1. 3. The suit was compromised and an order and decree on 8.9.2009 was passed in the following term : ^^1- oknhx.k izfroknh dz-1 ls 5]00]000@& ¼ik¡p yk[k :i;s½ nks ekg ds vanj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA 2- izfroknh dz-1 us oknhx.k dks nks ekg ds Hkhrj ik¡p yk[k :i;s vnk ugha fd, rks] oknhx.k izfroknh dz-1 ls 12 izfr’kr C;kt izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh jgsaxsA 3- izfroknh dz- 1 oknxzLr Hkwfe tks c¡Vokjs esa oknhx.k ds ifr o firk dks izkIr gqbZ Gs utwy CykWd ua- 27 ds IykV uacj 42@3 o 42@4 ¼IykV uacj 37@3] 39@1 dqy jdok 792 oxZQhV½ dk le>kSrk gksus ij Lokeh gks x;k gSA 4- izfroknh dz-1 Lokeh gksus ij oknxzLr edku ds fdjk,nkj Jhjke ukenso o Jh xksiky lkgw ds fu;ekuqlkj fdjk;k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA 5- oknhx.k o izfroknh dz- 1 blds ckn ,d&nwljs ij oknxzLr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa nkok ugha djsaxsA 6- mHk; i{kdkj viuk okn O;; ogu djsaxsA 7- vf/koDrk ‘kqYd izekf.kr gksus ij tks de gks] ns; gksA** 4. After the suit was decreed an application under sections 152 and 153 CPC came to be filed seeking amendment in the judgment and decree on the ground that since the trial Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction it ought not have passed compromise decree qua payment of Rs.5,00,000/- As also on the ground that, the decree was not drawn as per compromise arrived at. 5. The trial Court on a finding that there is no clerical or arithmetical mistake in the judgment and decree, rejected the application by impugned order. Rightly so, because section 152 CPC provides that clerical or arithmetical mistake in judgments, decree 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. Rightly so, because section 152 CPC provides that clerical or arithmetical mistake in judgments, decree 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. The provision thus envisages correction of clerical, arithmetical or accidental slips in the judgment and decree only and not the corrections of error in the judgment and decree as for that, the forum lies elsewhere. 6. In Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [ AIR 1966 SC 1047 ], it is observed that an arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, while clerical mistake is of writing or typing. An accidental slip or error is an error due to a careless mistake or omission unintentionally made and such mistake should be apparent on the face of the record. It should not depend for its discovery on elaborate arguments on question of law and fact. 7. The present is not such a case. 8. An accidental slip or error is an error due to a careless mistake or omission unintentionally made and such mistake should be apparent on the face of the record. It should not depend for its discovery on elaborate arguments on question of law and fact. 7. The present is not such a case. 8. The parties to the suit applied for the compromise in the following terms : ^^3- ;g fd oknhx.kksa esa oknh dz-1 izfroknh fcgkjhyky ds NksVs HkkbZ Lo- Lokehpj.k dh iRuh gS ,o oknh dz- 2 ,oa 3 okfn;k ds iq= gSA bl rjg nksuksa i{k ,d gh ifjokj ds lnL; gS] blfy, nksuksa i{kksa esa jkthukek gks x;k gS ftlds vuqlkj fookfnr laifRr esa IykV uacj 37@1 ,oa 39@1 dqy jdok 792 oxZQhV ij cuk edku tks fd Lo- lqnajckbZ dk gS ftldh olh;r ,oa lqnajokbZ izfroknh fcgkjhyky dks dj nh gS mls oknhx.k Lohdkj djrs gS ,oa mDr laifRr izfroknh fcgkjhyky Hkh Lohdkj djrs gS ,la mDr loh;r fnukad 2-1-1978 esa oknhx.kksa dsk dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA 4- ;g fd oknxzLr edku esa nks CykWd gS ftlds nf{k.k CykWd esa gh jke ukenso fdjk;k 500@& :i;s ekfld fdjk,nkj gS] tks okfn;k dks fdjk;k nsrk gS mlus viSzy 2009 eke ls fdjk;k vnk ugha fd;k gSA izfroknh mDr cdk;k fdjk;k ;k orZeku rFkk Hkfo”; dk fdjk;k mDr Jh jke ukenso fdjk,nkj ls izzkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS] izfroknh edku ekfyd dh gSfl;r ls dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA 5- ;g fd bl edku ds mRrjh CykWd esa Jh xksiky lkgw fdjk;k 600@& :i;s dk ekfld fdjk,nkj gS tks xksiky lkgw mDr ekfld fdjk;k oknh dks nsrs pyk vk;k gS] mDr fdjk,nkj Jh xksiky lkgw 15-10-2000 ls mDr CykWd dk fdjk;k ckdh gS] izfroknh edku ekfyd dh gSflr ls mDr edku dk orZeku fdjk;k ,oa Hkfo”; dk fdjk;k olwy djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 6- ;g fd Lohd`r :i ls ¼nksuksa CykWd dk½ edku ekfyd LoRokf/kdkjh izfroknh ¼fcgkjhyky½ gksus ds dkj.k og mDr fdjk;snkjksa ls mijksDrkuqlkj cdk;k] orZeku fdjk;k] Hkfo”; dk fdjk;k olwy djus ds fy, ;k mDr fdjk;snkjksa dh fdjk;knkjh lekIr dj fdjk;snkjh ifjlj ls mudk fu”dklu dj [kkyh dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA bl gsrq izfroknh ¼fcgkjhyky½ U;k;y;hu ,oa oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh gks vkfn djus ds fy, oS/kkfud :i ls leFkZ gSA 7- ;g fd oknxzLr laifRr ds laca/k esa mHk; i{k ds e/; vkilh jkthukes vuqlkj oknhx.k izfroknh dz-1 ls uxj jkf’k 5]00]000@& ¼ik¡p yk[k½ :i, ewy :o:i izkIr dj jgh gSA mDr jkf’k izfroknh dz- 1 fcgkjhyky jkthukek fnukad ls nks ekg ds vanj uxj Hkqxrku djsaxsA jkthukek vuqlkj pwd gksus ij oknhx.k laiw.kZ jde izkIr djus gsrq Lora= jgsaxs ftlesa izfroknh dz- 1 e; C;kt 12 izfr’kr nsunkj jgsaxsA bl vk’k dh fMdzh Hkh iznku dh tk,A 8- ;g fd okfn;k ikfjokfjd le>kbZ’k ls iw.kZr% larq”V gS ,oa Hkfo”; esa okfn;k ;k mlds okfjlku Lo- HkS;kyky ;k lqanjokbZ dh laifRr ij fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ dkuwuh nkok ugha djsaxsa lkFk gh okfn;k ds mRrjkf/kdkjh Hkh mDr laifRr ij fdlh Hkh rjg dh dksbZ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha djsaxsA** 9. The compromise decree was passed on 8.9.2009 apparently as per the provisions contained under Order 23 rule 3 CPC which provides for : “3. Compromise of suit. -- Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties or where the defendant satisfied the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit : Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment. Explanation : An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule.” 10. The expression “whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit”, is of wider connotation empowering the Court to record the compromise and decree the suit in terms of compromise even if the subject-matter incidentally exceeds the subject-matter of suit. In other words though in a suit for declaration of title and of possession as compromise was arrived at between the parties for settlement of dispute on payment of Rs.5,00,000/- the sum beyond pecuniary jurisdiction, but since the compromise is lawfully arrived at, it was within the jurisdiction of the trial Court to have decreed the suit in terms of compromise. Such a decree in the considered opinion of this Court is not unlawful as would warrant its correction under sections 152 and 153 of the CPC. The decree having been drawn on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties, it is binding on both the parties who cannot evade its execution. 11. Such a decree in the considered opinion of this Court is not unlawful as would warrant its correction under sections 152 and 153 of the CPC. The decree having been drawn on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties, it is binding on both the parties who cannot evade its execution. 11. In view of the above no interference is caused, as the trial Court was well within its right in rejecting the application under sections 152 and 153. 12. In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no costs.