JUDGMENT : 1. By the present revision application, the petitioners have prayed to grant prayers made in Civil Misc. Application No.376 of 2014 preferred by them before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot. 2. Prayer made in the said application is to correct/ amend/ alter the measurement of the land shown in heirship certificate at Exh.24 issued by the Court in Civil Misc. Application No.1262 of 2012 for area of land of 142.30 Sq. Mtrs. instead of 238.01 Sq. Mtrs. 3. It appears that the applicants had preferred Civil Misc. Application No.1262 of 2012 seeking grant of succession (heirship) certificate in respect of the property shown in Schedule-A attached with the said application. 4. As per the description of the property given in Schedule-A, succession certificate was asked for plot No.19/A of Revenue Survey No.83/1 admeasuring 284.60 Sq. Yds. (238.01 Sq. Mtrs.) situated at Raiya Village of Taluka Rajkot. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Jignesh Kapadia appearing for the petitioners submitted that on the application preferred by the petitioners, due procedure was followed, including inviting objection by public notice by the Court before grant of succession certificate and thereafter, the Court was pleased to allow the application by order dated 27.12.2012 and ordered to issue succession certificate in favour of the applicants in respect of the property shown in Schedule-A on applicants producing Court fee stamps on the value of property of Rs.6,93,522/- and the applicants were directed to produce necessary bond as prescribed under Indian Succession Act. Mr. Kapadia submitted that after the application for succession certificate was allowed, the petitioners realized that there was a bonafide mistake committed in showing actual measurement and description of the plot in the application on account of which succession certificate was granted to the petitioners for more area of land than actual holding of the petitioners. Mr. Kapadia submitted that since the petitioners did not want to take undue advantage and to avoid any complication in future, they preferred application seeking correction in the succession certificate, however, learned Judge rejected the application on the ground that neither Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor Section 261 of the Succession Act would empower the Court to entertain new facts to make correction in the order touching the merits of the case as the same would amount to re-deciding the matter on merits. Mr. Mr. Kapadia submitted that in fact, what was sought to be corrected was bonafide mistake which is permissible under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 261 of the Succession Act to meet ends of justice as the petitioners do not want succession certificate for more area of land than their entitlement. 6. In the present revision application, the petitioners have not joined any person as opponent because nobody opposed the application, being Civil Misc. Application No.1262 of 2012 preferred by the applicants for grant of succession certificate. In such view of the matter and having regard to the facts of the case, Court finds that for entertaining present revision application, no formal order of admission is required to be passed. 7. At the last hearing of the application, when the Court put to Mr. Kapadia as to how and on what basis, correction was sought in the succession certificate for mentioning the area of land of plot No.19/A-1 as 142.30 Sq. Mtrs. instead of 238.01 Sq. Mtrs., Mr. Kapadia drew attention of the Court to the averments made in para 5 of the application being Civil Misc. Application No.376 of 2014, and pointed out that plot No.19 was sub-divided after selling 95.83 Sq. Mtrs. of land which was given plot No.19/A-2 and land remained with the petitioners admeasuring 142.30 Sq. Mtrs. was given sub-plot No.19/A-1. The Court then asked Mr. Kapadia to place on record some documents reflecting the division of plot No.19 if recorded in any Government records. Mr. Kapadia then filed Additional Affidavit of applicant No.1 with copy of the development permission issued by Rajkot Urban Development Authority. On perusal of the said permission, it appears that originally, the plot held by the petitioners was described as plot No.19/A and on sub-plotting, as found mentioned in last column of the permission dated 10.6.1992, division of land admeasuring 238.13 Sq. Mtrs. was recorded as sub-plot No.19/A-1 admeasuring 142.30 Sq. Mtrs. and 19/A-2 admeasuring 95.83 Sq. Mtrs. Referring the development permission, Mr. kapadia submitted that if succession certificate is not restricted to plot No.19/A-1 for 142.30 Sq. Mtrs. was recorded as sub-plot No.19/A-1 admeasuring 142.30 Sq. Mtrs. and 19/A-2 admeasuring 95.83 Sq. Mtrs. Referring the development permission, Mr. kapadia submitted that if succession certificate is not restricted to plot No.19/A-1 for 142.30 Sq. Mtrs., the petitioners would find it difficult to get their names mutated for the said plot and further complications might arise for the petitioners, whereas if the correction in the succession certificate is allowed, the petitioners would not get anything more than what was granted in the certificate but the certificate will remain restricted to reduced area as now prayed for by the petitioners and therefore, nobody is going to be prejudiced nor anybody's rights would be affected by correction if allowed in the succession certificate. 8. The Court finds that though no error could be found with the view taken by learned Judge in refusing to accept the application on the ground that powers under Section 152 of the Code and Section 261 of the Succession Act are not to be exercised to redecide the matter on merits with new set of facts, which would affect identity of the property. However, here is a case where though it appears that some more facts need to be considered but, consideration of such facts may not amount to re-decide the matter on merits if seen necessitated to serve the ends of justice. As stated above with Additional Affidavit filed by applicant No.1, the documents are placed to show that plot No.19/A is sub-divided into plot Nos.19/A-1 and 19/A-2 having measurement of 142.30 and 95.83 Sq. Mtrs. respectively. It would have been a different matter if the applicants wanted correction in the succession certificate for altogether different plot or for more area than what is mentioned in the original application. If the applicants had taken some more care while preferring original application before the Court below, the applicants could have given clear description with correct measurement of the plot for which the applicants wanted succession certificate. However, as stated by the applicants, on account of the error committed by them, correct description and measurement of the plot for which succession certificate was required could not be mentioned in the original application. However, as stated by the applicants, on account of the error committed by them, correct description and measurement of the plot for which succession certificate was required could not be mentioned in the original application. Though powers under Section 152 are not available for correction of the mistake of the litigant, however when correction in the ultimate order is sought by the litigant on the basis of his mistake in mentioning clear description and measurement of the property and when such litigant is not to get more benefit by correction if granted but in fact, is to get something less than what is granted to him, the Court can always exercise its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code to secure the ends of justice. However, before exercising such powers, the Court should ensure that proper procedure is followed to avoid any future complication. 9. In the case on hand, the applicants have averred in para 5 of the Civil Misc. Application No.376 of 2014 distinct and separate sub-plot Nos.19/A-1 admeasuring 142.30 Sq. Mtrs. and 19/A-2 admeasuring 95.83 Sq. Mtrs. and when in support of such averments, the applicants have produced some documents with Additional Affidavit filed before this Court, it will be appropriate if the Court below looks at such documents for exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code in the facts of the case to pass necessary orders for correction in the succession certificate as sought by the applicants. However, to avoid any complication in future and for safer side, it would be required of the Court to invite objections by public notice at the cost of the applicants against the correction sought for by the applicants. 10. In view of above, this Civil Revision Application is accepted. Impugned order dated 25.8.2014 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sr. Civil Judge, Rajkot in Civil Misc. Application No.376 of 2014 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to learned Judge to reconsider the matter afresh in light of the observations made in this order. However, before considering the matter afresh, learned Judge may ensure that public notice inviting objections against the correction sought for by the applicants in the succession certificate is issued by clearly mentioning the description with measurement of the properties for which correction is sought. The application is disposed of accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.