1. In this Civil Revision Petition the petitioners contend that an inadvertent mistake occurred in the title page of the plaint which was registered and numbered as Money Suit No. 13 of 2002 which was .subsequently decreed on 7.7.2006 by the learned Court of Civil Judge at Tinsukia. The said inadvertent mistake was in respect of the address of the respondent, i.e., M/s. Auro Tea Company Ltd. which had been shown as "Dcrgaon, District-Jorhat" which, according to the petitioners, ought to have been "Dergaon, District Golaghat". 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they learnt about the aforesaid mistake on 7.12.2007 and as a curative measure filed an application before the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia under sections 151/152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction of the name of the District to the extent that Jorhat be read as Golaghat in the plaint as well as in the Judgment and Decree dated 7.7.2006, It is also, the case of the petitioners that the said application dated 7.12.2007 (Annexure 3 to the Revision Petition) did not find favour,, in that, the same was rejected by order dated 7.2.2008 (p. 20 of the Revision Petition), Being aggrieved the petitioners have initiated the instant proceeding. 3. Prom records there is no indication whatsoever that the said application for correction dated 7.12.2007 had met with any resistance from the defendant side. Even in the instant proceeding records do not indicate that the defendant had entered appearance. In fact the order of this court passed on 12.12.2003 indicates that notice on the respondent had been deemed to be served. Be that as it may, and for all intent and purposes the Revision Petition with the limited prayer made thereof remain unopposed and uncontested. 4. Referring to the impugned order dated 7.2.2008, the grounds for rejecting the application for correction and for dissuading from exercising inherent powers under section 151 of the CPC is on the premises that the learned court had rendered itself functus officio to pass any order for correcting the error or mistake in the plaint as well as in the judgment and decree passed in the suit, which have been prepared as per the pleadings in the plaint. 5. 5. Having noticed the facts and considering the materials on record and the powers of this court as envisaged under section 152 of the CPC, this court is of the opinion that a successful plaintiff should not be deprived of the fruit of the decree. An inadvertent error not affecting the merits of the case may be corrected under section 152 of the CPC by the court which passed the decree by supplying the omission and/or making the necessary correction. To be precise, a decree of a competent court should not, as far as practicable, be allowed to be defeated on account of an accidental slip or omission, which is squarely the case of the petitioners and which have not suffered any resistance either in the court below or in the proceeding before this court. 6. In view of the above, the order dated 7.2.2008 calls for interference and is accordingly set aside and quashed. As a necessary corollary it is deemed appropriate to issue necessary direction to the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia to consider, appreciate and dispose of the application for correction date 7.12.2007 afresh by supplying the omission and/or making the necessary correction in the plaint as well as in the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2008 passed in Money Suit No. 13/2012. 7. As a result, the Revision Petition stands allowed in terms of the above without, however, any costs. Registry is requested to send back the case records forthwith to the appropriate courts below. ..