ORDER : The petitioner/plaintiff filed the above revision petition against the order dated 02.08.2014 made in O.S.No.17/2013 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Gokak, dismissing the application filed under Section 152 read with Section 151 and 153 of Code of Civil Procedure to correct the cause title of the judgment and decree. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed O.S.No.137/2011 against the respondents for declaration declaring that the caste of the plaintiff is ‘Hindu Navi’ instead of ‘Hindu Lingayat Navi’ and to direct the respondents/defendants to correct the entry regarding caste of the plaintiff in the school records as ‘Hindu Navi’ instead of ‘Hindu Lingayat Navi’. 3. It is contended that the plaintiff is the permanent resident of Gokak and he has completed his 4th primary and higher education at the defendant school 5th and also completed his PreUniversity Course at defendant College and he completed his degree course from the 6th defendant college. It is further contended that the plaintiff and his family members belong to ‘Hindu Navi’ caste and community. The relatives of plaintiff also belong to ‘Hindu Navi’ caste and community and also the family members of the plaintiff are identified and recognised by the public at large that they belong to ‘Hindu Navi’ caste and they are performing the customs of ‘Hindu Navi’ caste and community. 4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that, in the school records of his father and brother caste is correctly mentioned as '‘Hindu Navi’. But in the school records of the plaintiff caste is wrongly entered as “Hindu Lingayat Navi” instead of “Hindu Navi”. It is contended that neither the plaintiff nor his parents and family members belong to “Hindu Lingayat Navi” caste. It is averred in the petition that inspite of giving correct and proper instructions by the parents of plaintiff to enter his caste as “Hindu Navi” in the school records, the school authorities have wrongly entered his caste as “Hindu Lingayat Navi”. The said mistake came to the knowledge of the plaintiff when he obtained the school records recently and immediately he approached the defendants to correct the wrong entry. But the defendants refused to make any correction in the school records. 5. The said mistake came to the knowledge of the plaintiff when he obtained the school records recently and immediately he approached the defendants to correct the wrong entry. But the defendants refused to make any correction in the school records. 5. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants on 31.12.2010, calling upon them to correct the name of caste as “Hindu Navi” instead of “Hindu Lingayat Navi”. On receipt of the said notice the defendants gave a reply and directed the plaintiff to get an order of Civil Court to correct the school records. Being aggrieved by the said reply, the plaintiff was constrained to approach the Civil Court in O.S.No.137/2011 on the file of the Civil Judge, Jr.Dn. Gokak. 6. The defendants 1 to 5 appeared through AGP and defendant7 has filed written statement and defendants 1 to 4 adopted the same and denied the entire plaint averments contending that while admitting the plaintiff to the school the parents of the plaintiff has given information and as per the said information the caste of plaintiff was mentioned as “Hindu Lingayat Navi” and there is no mistake of the school authorities and also contended that there is no cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit and the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time, etc and sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. The trial court based on the pleadings has framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is belonging to “Hindu Navi” community? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that his caste is wrongly mentioned as ‘Hindu Lingayat Navi’ in all school records maintained by defendant Nos.2 & 7? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for relief sought for? 6. What order or decree?” 8. The plaintiff in order to establish his case, has examined himself as PW.1 and a witness PW.2 and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.14. The defendants did not adduce any evidence. 9. 4. Whether the bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for relief sought for? 6. What order or decree?” 8. The plaintiff in order to establish his case, has examined himself as PW.1 and a witness PW.2 and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.14. The defendants did not adduce any evidence. 9. The learned Civil Judge, Gokak after hearing both parties by the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.10.2011 decreed the suit with costs declaring the plaintiff’s caste as “Hindu Navi” and directed the defendants to correct the school records of the plaintiff by showing his caste as “Hindu Navi” instead of “Hindu Lingayat Navi”. 10. The petitioner contended that as per decree of the trial court, he filed an application before the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belgaum to correct the entry in the school records. But the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belgaum refused to correct the school records as per decree on the ground that he is not a party to the suit. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application in Cvl.Misc.17/2013 under Section 152 read with Sections 151 and 153 of Code of Civil Procedure for correction of cause title in the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.137/2011. The said application was resisted by the respondent Government by filing objections. 11. After hearing both parties, the learned Principal Civil Judge, Gokak by the impugned order 2.8.2014 dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous holding that the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belgaum, is not a party to the impugned judgment and decree passed in O.S.137/2011. Against the said order, the present writ petition is filed. 12. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 13. Sri.N. J. Appannanavar, learned Counsel appearing for Sri Lakshman T. Mantagani, learned Counsel for petitioner has contended that the impugned order passed by the trial court is contrary to the material documents and cannot be sustained in law. He also contended that the very suit filed by the petitioner is for declaring his caste as ‘HinduNavi’ and allegation is made against the school authorities; he has impleaded the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belagavi and other concerned authorities and in the event of correction of the causetitle in the Original Suit, it would not alter the nature of the suit nor it makes any difference. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order and allow the above civil revision petition. 14. Per contra, Sri.Ravi.V.Hosamani, learned AGA, has sought to justify the impugned order and contended that when the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belagavi, is not a party to the original proceedings and the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Chikkodi, against whom a decree was obtained, it cannot compel the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belagavi, to implement the decree. It will change the entire nature of the suit and it is not permissible. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition. 15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 16. The substance of the entire plaint is that the petitioner and other family members belong to ‘HinduNavi’ caste and by mistake, the School authorities have wrongly mentioned the caste as ‘HinduLingayatNavi’; that is sought to be corrected by filing the original suit. Before filing the suit, the petitioner issued a legal notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure to the respondents on 31.12.2010. In the legal notice under Ex.P.13, the parties mentioned are as under: 1. The State of Karnataka, reptd. By Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum. 2. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belgaum. 3. The Block Education Officer, Saundatti, Dist: Belgaum. 4. The Head Master, Govt. Kannada Boys School, Asundi Tal. Saundatti. 5. The Principal,’ S.K.composite PreUniversity College, Saundatti, Dist.Belgaum. 6. The Principal, J.S.S. Arts, Science and Commerce College, Gokak, Dist.Belgaum. 17. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners produced the certified copy of the plaint in O.S. No.137/2011. The cause title of the plaint reads as under: 18. Admittedly, in the present case, the respondent authorities have not adduced any evidence, except filing the written statement to rebut the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners produced the certified copy of the plaint in O.S. No.137/2011. The cause title of the plaint reads as under: 18. Admittedly, in the present case, the respondent authorities have not adduced any evidence, except filing the written statement to rebut the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs. It is also relevant to note at this stage that while filing the application under Section 152 read with Section 151 and 153 of Code of Civil Procedure, for correction of the decree, in the application the petitioner specifically stated at paragraph 2 as under: “ 2] It is submitted that, as per the judgment and decree, the petitioner had took a certified copy of the same for complying before the concerned authorities for rectifying / correction of his Caste i.e., HinduNavi instead of HinduLingayat Navi. Further, it is submitted that, subsequently the petitioner has came to know that, the small typical mistake was done in the instructions Chikkodi, Division Chikkodi, Tal: Chikkodi, Dist: Belgaum. But, the actual DDPI at Belgaum, the same is clerical typical mistake. And it is submitted that, the petitioner had submitted a amended copy of the plaint, in this plaint also the typical mistake that DDPI, Chikkodi, the same is also not intentional or deliberate one it is an a unavoidable circumstances.” 19. While passing the impugned order, the trial court has recorded a finding that the decree obtained by the petitioner is against the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Chikkodi, and not against the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belagavi; ignoring the fact that the plaint and the legal notice issued by the petitioner to the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belagavi and others were the correct authorities. The certified copy of the plaint also discloses the correct officers who have got jurisdiction to correct the entries in the school records, as already stated above. 20. The entire pleadings and records clearly depicts that the mistake of the causetitle of the judgment and decree is on the part of the office of the Court and not on the part of either by the petitioner or the respondents. The said arithmetical and clerical mistake is done by the Court. Therefore, the petitioner should not be penalised for the mistake caused by the Court itself. 21. The said arithmetical and clerical mistake is done by the Court. Therefore, the petitioner should not be penalised for the mistake caused by the Court itself. 21. The provisions of Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: “152. Amendment of judgments, decree 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.” On a plain reading of Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that at any time, any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgment and decrees or Orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may be corrected by the Court either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. 22. So far as legal position is concerned, there would hardly be any doubt about the proposition that in terms of Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure, any error occurred in the judgment and decree, on account of arithmetical or clerical error or accidental slip, may be rectified by the Court. The principle behind the provision of Section 152 of CPC is that no party should suffer due to mistake of the Court and whatever is intended by the Court, while passing the order or decree must be properly reflected therein, otherwise, it would only be destructive to the principle of advancing the cause of justice. 23. While considering the provisions of Sections 152 & 151 and Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NIYAMAT ALI MOLLA Vs. SONARGON HOUSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & OTHERS reported in (2007) 13 SCC 421 , has held as under: “18. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to correct its own error in a judgment, decree or order from any accidental slip or omission. The principle behind the said provision is actus curiae nemenim gravabit, i.e., nobody shall be prejudiced by an act of court. 19. The Code of Civil Procedure recognises the inherent power of the court. It is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under Section 152 of the Code but also inherent power in general. 19. The Code of Civil Procedure recognises the inherent power of the court. It is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under Section 152 of the Code but also inherent power in general. The courts also have duty to see that the records are true and present the correct state of affair. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to review its judgment. It cannot also exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake or slip occurred in the decree or order. This provision, in our opinion, should, however, not be construed in a pedantic manner. A decree may, therefore, be corrected by the Court both in exercise of its power under Section 152 as also under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a power of the court is well recognized.” 24. In the present case, as per the pleadings, which clearly depicts that the plaintiff specifically seeks relief against the correct authorities/parties, stated above; before filing the suit, mandatory notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure was also issued to the said persons and admittedly, the suit was decreed as prayed for, declaring that the plaintiff belongs to “HinduNavi” and not “HinduLingayat Navi” and directed the defendants to correct the school records of the plaintiff by showing the caste as “HinduNavi” instead of “HinduLingayat Navi”. While passing the judgment and decree, the Court itself has given wrong causetitle without any basis. The error crept in is only accidental slip and the plaintiff should not suffer for the mistake committed by the Court itself. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court is without application of mind and without reference to the plaint, legal notice and judgment, and the contents of the application filed. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court cannot be sustained in law. 25. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court dated 14.08.2013 in Civil Misc. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court cannot be sustained in law. 25. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court dated 14.08.2013 in Civil Misc. Case No.17/2013 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Gokak, is set aside; The application filed by the petitioner to correct the cause title of the judgment and decree is allowed; The trial court is directed to correct the cause title of the judgment and decree forthwith and issue corrected certified copy of the judgment and decree to the petitioner, enabling the petitioner to approach the concerned authority, namely Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belagavi for implementation of the decree, in accordance with law.