JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Kashyap R. Joshi wavies service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. S. P. Majmudar for the petitioner and leaned advocate Mr. Kashyap Joshi for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No.1 though duly served, has remained absent. Therefore, there is reason to believe that he admits the averments in petition and he has no objection, if petition is allowed as prayed for. 3. Petitioner is original plaintiff – decree holder, whereas respondents are defendants against whom Additional Senior Civil Judge of Surat has passed a judgment and decree dated 12.05.2006 in Special Civil Suit No. 516 of 1991. Copies of which are produced at Annexure ‘A’ being Exhibit 137 in such suit. 4. Whereas at present, petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.01.2011 in Misc. Civil Application No. 71 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for rectification of several clerical/typographical error in such judgment. However, trial Court has by impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.2011 rejected such application mainly on the premises that the Court who has passed judgment and decree does not have powers even under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to modify its own judgment and decree except to correct the arithmetic error or error by negligence or accidental error in the judgment. The trial Court has, further stated that if proposed corrections are made, it will prejudice the rights of the other-side and, therefore, the same cannot be carried out and rejected the application to carry out such corrections. The trial Court has gone further by stating that error which is directly not connected with the Court proceedings, cannot be corrected. 5. It is unfortunate that the matter is dragged till date on several hypothetical submissions and technical issues. If we peruse the application seeking corrections in the judgment, it becomes clear that the petitioner – plaintiff has categorically submitted list of errors in the judgment of the Court and on verification of all those 6 errors in presence of learned advocates for both the sides, now it becomes clear that all such errors are in fact either typographical and clerical in nature or it is purely because of non – application of mind and negligence of the concerned Court in disclosing certain facts in the judgment. In view of such fact, findings of the trial Court in the impugned order dated 15.01.2011 are certainly perverse and not in accordance with record and thereby it results into not only irregularity but injustice to the petitioner and hence trial Court should have corrected the mistakes and errors in the judgment at the earliest, so as to enable the decree holder to get the fruits of the decree of the year 2006 in the suit of the year 1991. 6. If we consider all these errors, it becomes clear that; (1) In para 3 of the judgment, when Court has specifically made a list of the documents, after the line which is sought to be corrected, wherein it is stated that plaintiff has not produced documentary or oral evidence, considering list of documentary and oral evidence immediately after such sentence, it becomes clear that negative sense of the sentence is purely by mistake. We may term such mistake, in any manner, but it remains an error in an executable order and, therefore, it certainly needs to be rectified. Therefore, when list of documents are disclosed immediately after such sentence, such sentence is not correct and, therefore, suggestive modification No.1 needs to be allowed. (2) Similar is the position so far as modification No.2 is concerned, in as much as, while reproducing the issues from the original exhibit, where issues were framed by previous judge, it seems that there is typographical error in disclosing one survey No as “70” instead of “29” because at all other places, in the plaint and even in first para of the judgment, there is specific reference of survey No. “29” and there is no reference of survey No. “70” at all. Therefore, such survey number is also required to be modified and corrected accordingly. (3) Third suggestion of modification is formal in nature, in as much as, while answering the issues, the learned Judge has corrected one word wrongly typed by the typist in handwriting by pen but such correction is not endorsed with initial by the judicial officer. Therefore, when petitioner requested to endorse such correction with initial of the learned Judge, so as to avoid any such other correction in the documents by anyone and then to claim that it was there in the judgment itself, there is no reason to refuse such modification. Therefore, when petitioner requested to endorse such correction with initial of the learned Judge, so as to avoid any such other correction in the documents by anyone and then to claim that it was there in the judgment itself, there is no reason to refuse such modification. (4) So far as correction No.4 is concerned, initially though learned advocate Mr. Joshi has argued that it cannot be corrected since petitioner has produced some documents of the land of Choryasi taluka where he is residing and, therefore, submitted that the trial Court has rightly recorded the name of taluka choryasi instead of taluka Mangrol, there is no substance in such defense also, in as much as, respondent admit that dispute is of the land of village Talsadi, which falls within taluka Mangrol and not in Choryasi and, therefore, even if petitioner has produced some documents to prove that he is owning some land in taluka Choryasi so as to prove that he is an agriculturist, when record shows that suit is for survey Nos. 29, 30 and 31 of village Talsani, which falls in taluka Mangrol, there is no reason for the trial Court to record that land of village Talsani is of taluka Choryasi. The relevant text in the judgment at internal page 9 makes it clear that practically the trial Judge has tried to reproduce one paragraph of agreement to sell and, therefore, if we refer such paragraph from the agreement to sell, then it is clear that there is a reference of taluka Mangrol. Therefore, the trial Court has no reason to change the name of the taluka while quoting the entire paragraph of agreement to sell. Thus such correction is necessary. (5) So far as fifth modification is concerned, it is nothing but purporting clarity of the facts by disclosing the particulars of the registered sale deed. There is no reason to refuse such correction. However, so far as such correction is concerned, it requires to be cross checked and it cannot be done in absence of original sale deed, copy of which is not available before this Court and, therefore, suggested modification No.5 can be omitted. However, since real endorsement in the original judgment is to be done by the local officer only, the petitioner is at liberty to bring to the notice to the local Court for rectification of such order by referring original documents. However, since real endorsement in the original judgment is to be done by the local officer only, the petitioner is at liberty to bring to the notice to the local Court for rectification of such order by referring original documents. (6) Whereas proposed modification in para 6 is also quite obvious when trial Court has though decreed the suit after filing adjudication, instead of confirming the injunction permanently, the concerned directions disclose that injunction is granted temporarily. Therefore, that word “temporarily” is required to be replaced with the word “permanently”. 7. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is no harm in correcting the judgment under reference. Therefore, impugned order is quashed and set aside. Thereby, Misc. Civil Application No. 71 of 2006 is partly allowed so as to carry out the proposed corrections Nos. 1 to 4 and 6. So far as proposed correction No.5 is concerned, petitioner is at liberty to apply for correction before the trial Court and to show the evidence and documents from record. 8. In view of above, facts and circumstances and discussion, petition is partly allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to that extent.