JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 5.8.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner, under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the Code), for correction of the decree, came to be dismissed. The facts in brief may be noticed. 2. The petitioner had filed a suit bearing No.7 of 1995 against the respondents in the court of learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Karsog, inter- alia, seeking relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that respondents No. 1 to 7 be restrained from raising any construction over khasra No. 105, situated in Main Bazar, Karsog measuring 0-9-4 bighas. The petitioner claimed himself to be the co-owner to the extent of 1/3rd share. 3. The respondents No. 1 to 7 contested the suit filed by the plaintiff- petitioner, but claimed that petitioner was not owner of 1/3rd share but owner to the extent of half share and the remaining half share was claimed by the respondents on the basis of a family partition which had taken place in the year 1978 and subsequently ratified by the parties. 4. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial court against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Mandi. In appeal, following two additional issues, being issue No.6-A and 6-B were framed:- 6-A. Whether the respondent No. 1 is raising construction over the suit land as alleged? OPP. 6-B If issue No. 6-A is proved in affirmative, whether the respondent is liable to be directed not to cause any obstruction on the path of the house of respondent which is being used by plaintiff from time of their forefathers on both eastern as well as back side as alleged? OPP. 5. The learned lower appellate court after framing the aforesaid additional issues remitted the case to the learned trial court and directed it to return findings on the said issues. The learned trial court returned findings on the said issues. Issue No. 6-A was decided in the affirmative, whereas issue No. 6-B was decided in the negative. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal in the following manner:- “In view of my findings on Point No.1 above, there is merit in the appeal and the same is allowed. The learned trial court returned findings on the said issues. Issue No. 6-A was decided in the affirmative, whereas issue No. 6-B was decided in the negative. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal in the following manner:- “In view of my findings on Point No.1 above, there is merit in the appeal and the same is allowed. The impugned judgement of trial court is set-aside. The record of trial court alongwith copy of judgement be sent forthwith and file of this court after completion be consigned to record room.” 6. Against the aforesaid judgement and decree, the respondents No. 1 to 7 filed RSA No. 25 of 2004 before this court, however, the said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.5.2004 on the ground that since no decree had been passed against the respondents herein, therefore, they cannot be said to be the aggrieved party. 7. The petitioner thereafter moved the present application, under section 152 of the Code for correction in the judgement and decree on the ground that it was a result of accidental slip of omission and the relief granted in favour of the petitioner had not in fact been incorporated in the judgement and decree. 8. The respondents contested and resisted the application by disputing that there was accidental slip or omission in passing of the judgement and decree. 9. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application by holding that the terms of original decree, judgement or order cannot be modified as it does not empower the court to have second thought over the matter when it finds out that a better order could have been passed. It has further held that no amendment should be allowed when third party has acquired rights or it would be inequitable or unjust to allow ratification. 10. Section 152 of the Code reads thus:- “152 Amendment of judgements, 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.” 11. It is evident from the bare perusal of the aforesaid provision that court may at any time correct the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. 12. It is evident from the bare perusal of the aforesaid provision that court may at any time correct the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. 12. The scope and ambit of the aforesaid section has been subject matter of recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srihari (dead) through legal representative Ch. Niveditha Reddy vs. Syed Maqdoom Shah and others (2015) 1 SCC 607 wherein it was held as under:- “13. From the language of Section 152 of the Code, as quoted above, and also from the interpretation of the section given in the case of State of Punjab vs. Darshan Singh (2004) 1 SCC 328 , the section is meant for correcting the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. It is true that the powers under Section 152 of the Code are neither to be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or even said to clothe the Court under guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered. The corrections contemplated under the section are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152. In Bijay Kumar Saraogi v, state if Hgarjgabd (2005) 7 SCC 748 also it has been reiterated that Section 152 of the Code can be invoked for the limited purpose of correcting clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or accidental omissions. 14. Now we have to examine whether by the impugned order, the High Court has only corrected the clerical, arithmetical or accidental omission in the decree passed or not. To appreciate the same, first we think it necessary to mention as to what the word “expression accidental omission” means. In Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Orissa and Another AIR 1966 SC 1047 , expression – accidental slip or omission has been explained as an error due to a careless mistake or omission unintentionally made. It is further observed in the said case that: “7. In Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Orissa and Another AIR 1966 SC 1047 , expression – accidental slip or omission has been explained as an error due to a careless mistake or omission unintentionally made. It is further observed in the said case that: “7. ……..there is another qualification, namely, such an error shall be apparent on the face of the record, that is to say, it is not an error which depends for its discovery, elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. (emphasis supplied) 15. Whether the High Court has acted within the scope of Section 152 of the Code or not, we have to see as to what were the pleadings of parties, what was the decree passed, and what was the correction made in it. “ 13. It is not in dispute that Additional District Judge at the time of deciding the appeal had in fact allowed the appeal and the judgement of the trial court had specifically been set-aside. Further, it is only on account of the decree of the trial court having been reversed that respondents herein had preferred RSA No. 25 of 2004 before this court, which was dismissed in limine by according the following reasons: - “Heard. Since no decree has been passed against the defendants-appellants, they cannot be said to be aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the first Appellate Court. On this short ground alone, the appeal is dismissed. CMP No. 338/04 Infructuous, in view of the orders passed in the main matter.” 14. Now in the teeth of the reversal of the trial court judgement and filing of appeal by the respondents themselves, can they now question the decree passed by the lower appellate court by contesting the application filed under section 152 of the Code for rectification of the judgement and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge Mandi on 25.9.2003? The answer to this is obviously in the negative as the law has to be interpreted in a manner, which would advance the cause of justice and not defeat it. Once the lower appellate court had specifically set-aside the judgement of the trial court, the necessary corollary of the same was that suit which had earlier been dismissed by the trial court would be deemed to have been decreed unconditionally. Once the lower appellate court had specifically set-aside the judgement of the trial court, the necessary corollary of the same was that suit which had earlier been dismissed by the trial court would be deemed to have been decreed unconditionally. If that was not so, then why did the respondents challenge this judgement and decree by filing RSA No. 25 of 2004. Therefore, the respondents at this stage are estopped by their act and conduct in opposing the application for correction as sought for. 15. The learned senior counsel for the respondents would however contend that the application moved by the petitioner is nothing short of review and therefore, not maintainable. I am afraid, I cannot accede to such submission for the simple reason that it was the respondents themselves who after construing and understanding the impugned judgement had assailed the same by filing RSA No. 25 of 2004. In case the judgement and decree had not been passed against the respondents, then where was the occasion for them to have filed an appeal? 16. Even otherwise, the decree drawn up by the learned lower appellate court is only a formal expression of the relief granted in the judgement. It is evident from the bare perusal of this judgement that the findings of the trial court whereby it had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff had in fact been set-aside by the learned lower appellate court. 17. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I find merit in this petition and accordingly the same is allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Mandi on 5.8.2014 is ordered to be set-aside and the judgement and decree is ordered to be rectified by specifically rectifying the same so as to clearly specify the extent and manner of appropriate relief(s) to which the petitioner has been found entitled consistent with the intention expressed in the judgement and accordingly thereafter appropriate decree be drawn up.