JUDGMENT K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 5.1.2010 passed by the III Civil Judge Class I, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 9-A/2009 wherein a prayer made by the applicant for correction in the decree has been rejected. It is contended that a civil suit was filed by the applicant against the respondent No. 1 for specific performance of a contract or in the alternative refund of the earnest money with interest. Since the land in suit was agriculture land, the State of Madhya Pradesh through the Collector, Jabalpur, was impleaded as a proforma defendant. In the plaint, area of the land was specifically described with its survey number in words and figure both. It was categorically said that in fact the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 was in need of money, therefore, a loan was obtained by him from the applicant on 15.4.2001 and an acknowledgment of the same was executed. On 12.5.2001, the respondent again came to the applicant and stated that he was in need of some more money for the purposes of purchase of the land from one Chandrika Prasad Patel and Rs. 1 lac was needed for the said purposes for getting the sale deed executed by 16.5.2001. The applicant refused to oblige the respondent by giving loan of Rs. 1 lac, but, when the respondent offered to sale part of the land owned by him, such an offer was accepted by the applicant and an amount of Rs. 80,000/- was agreed as sale consideration for part of the land of Survey No. 363 area 0.50 hectare. The respondent was in fact in need of Rs. 1 lac, therefore, he offered part of the land of Survey No. 361 area 0.19 hectare and trees standing on the land of Kh. No. 363 for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. To get the sale deed executed, the applicant, after getting her FDR prematurely withdrawn, paid the amount to the respondent. However, the respondent executed the sale deed of land of Survey No. 363 only and no sale deed for the land of Survey No. 361 was executed, though the possession of the same was delivered to the applicant. 2. 20,000/-. To get the sale deed executed, the applicant, after getting her FDR prematurely withdrawn, paid the amount to the respondent. However, the respondent executed the sale deed of land of Survey No. 363 only and no sale deed for the land of Survey No. 361 was executed, though the possession of the same was delivered to the applicant. 2. Even when the demands were made to execute the sale deed, the respondent had not complied with the same nor had performed his part of the contract aforesaid, therefore, the suit was required to be filed. In the plaint, not only the area of the disputed land was mentioned in figure, but the same was also described in words. Even in the relief clause made in the plaint, it was specifically mentioned that the decree was to be granted for execution of the sale deed of the land bearing Survey No. 361 area 0.19 hectare. However, though this figure was mentioned in words in appropriate manner, only because of typographical error, the figure in the description of area was typed as 0.10'. It is the case of the applicant that the respondent No. 1 was proceeded ex parte and the evidence of applicant was recorded. Thereafter, the decree was granted by the court. However, while passing the judgment and decree, erroneously, only the description in figures of the area of the disputed land was mentioned and when this fact came to the notice of the applicant, immediately the application was made for correction in the decree under Section 152 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'). Such an application has been rejected by the impugned order, therefore, this revision is required to be filed. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that if the plaint is seen, right from the very beginning area of disputed land was mentioned not only in figure, but in words as well. Even in the relief clause this particular aspect was clearly mentioned, as it was mentioned in words as. Therefore, it was clear that it was only a typographical error committed in mentioning the area in figures only in relief clause in the plaint and this error could have been corrected in exercise of powers under Section 152 CPC. Even in the relief clause this particular aspect was clearly mentioned, as it was mentioned in words as. Therefore, it was clear that it was only a typographical error committed in mentioning the area in figures only in relief clause in the plaint and this error could have been corrected in exercise of powers under Section 152 CPC. It is contended that the law is well settled in this respect, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 225 . There was no question of any addition or alteration in the description of the land in suit, shown in the plaint. Only a typographical error was required to be corrected. The typographical error too was only with respect to mentioning of the area of disputed land in figures as the same was rightly mentioned in words. For correcting such a small typographical error, neither there was any need to reopen the trial nor any evidence was required to be recorded. It was also not necessary to grant any opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 1, as he had proceeded ex parte before the court below. If such facts are taken into consideration, it was not required by the court below to grant any opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 1 while passing the orders on the application made by the applicant for correction in the decree. The principles of natural justice would not be attracted in such circumstances. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has simply said that the order is rightly passed by the court below, but has not contested the matter at all, even before this Court. 5. It is to be seen that the provisions of Section 152 CPC are specifically made for correction of clerical and arithmetical error in judgment, decree or orders or to correct the error arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, at any time by the court. Even such power can be exercised suo motu without application of the parties or on the application of the parties, as the case may be. Even such power can be exercised suo motu without application of the parties or on the application of the parties, as the case may be. From the perusal of plaint as a whole, it is clear that the applicant was cautious enough to mention the date, the amount, the survey number and the area of the disputed land in words and figures both. In the entire plaint it is seen that whenever any figure was mentioned, the same was described in words as well. In paragraph-2 of the plaint, it was specifically said that the respondent No. 1 agreed to sell his land of Survey No. 361 area 0.19 hectare together with the trees standing on the land of Survey No. 363 to the applicant for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. Every such figure was also described in words. In paragraph-3 of plaint again, the area of the land in suit was described in words and figure both. In paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 again the area of the land in suit was described in words and figure both. However, only in the relief clause, while mentioning the area in figure, by a typographical error instead of 19', the figure 10' was typed. This could be clarified from the area mentioned in words, as there was a categorical description made in words as. In the statement of witness also the very same figure was mentioned by the applicant. It was not necessary for the trial court to take the area only from the figures mentioned in the relief clause, but the area could have been ascertained from the description of the same made in words also. This being so, it has to be treated that there was an accidental slip or omission on account of which correct description of the area of the disputed land was not mentioned in figure only, though it was described in words in appropriate manner. The law well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla (supra) leaves no scope of doubt to make application of Section 152 CPC in such circumstances. Even otherwise, since the respondent No. 1 was ex parte had not put forth any defence in respect of the claim made by the applicant in the court below, there was not question of causing any prejudice to him, if such a correction was directed in the decree. Even otherwise, since the respondent No. 1 was ex parte had not put forth any defence in respect of the claim made by the applicant in the court below, there was not question of causing any prejudice to him, if such a correction was directed in the decree. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned civil judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him while passing the orders on the application of the applicant for correction of the decree. Such an order cannot be sustained in law. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this revision is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The application made by the applicant under Section 152 CPC is hereby allowed. The trial court is directed to make correction in the decree granted by it in the description of the area of land and is further directed to mention the same in words and figure both as "0.19 hectare". The revision is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, there shall be no order as to cost.