JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Plaintiffs’ application, so filed under the provisions of Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1997 passed by Sub-Judge (I) Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 154/91, titled as Madan Lal & others Versus Nikko Ram & others, as affirmed/amended vide judgment and decree dated 14.07.1998, passed by learned District Judge, Dharamshala, in Civil Appeal No. 77-D/XIII-1997, titled as Nikko Ram & others Versus Madan Lal & others, stands rejected by the Court below vide order dated 12.01.2004 in Civil Misc. Application No. 303/03, titled as Madan Lal & others Versus Nikko Ram & others. 2. Operative portion of the decree sheet dated 31.07.1997 reads as under:- “…the suit of the plaintiffs succeeds and is decreed by passing a decree to the effect that the plaintiffs have become owner of the suit land comprised in Khata No. 121, Khatauni No. 302, Khasra Nos. 663, 664, Kita 2 measuring 0-33-43 hects., land revenue Rs.3.22, jamabandi for the year 1984-85, situated at Mohal Kadyal Mauza Lunj, Tehsil & District Kangra, by way of adverse possession and defendants are restrained from causing any interference with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land by passing a decree of permanent, prohibitory injunction. No order as to costs”. (Emphasis supplied) 3. In terms of the application in question, plaintiffs want two more Khasra numbers i.e. 667 and 668 to be incorporated in the decree sheet, which were allegedly left out on account of typographical mistake or clerical error. 4. Significantly, in the defendants’ appeal judgment and decree passed by the trial Court stand affirmed. 5. For just and proper appreciation of the controversy in issue, relevant paragraph of the application is reproduced as under:- “4. That the suit of the applicants was decreed by Sub Judge but then Sub Judge has omitted to mention a part of suit land i.e. Khata no. 122, Khatauni no. 304, Khasra nos. 667 and 668 land measuring 0-08-27 hects. in the judgment and decree. And the Hon’ble District Judge has also omitted the same as the same was omitted in judgment and decree of trial court. 122, Khatauni no. 304, Khasra nos. 667 and 668 land measuring 0-08-27 hects. in the judgment and decree. And the Hon’ble District Judge has also omitted the same as the same was omitted in judgment and decree of trial court. The omission to mention part of suit land was occasioned due to accidental slip or clerical error as the court never intended to pass judgment and decree in this manner since the suit of the applicants was decreed”. And response thereto so filed by the defendants reads as under:- “4. Paragraph 4 of the application is correct that suit has been decreed but the correction as prayed for cannot be ordered to be carried out. The Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to order the correction as prayed for. The mistake is not accidental slip or clerical error. No rectification of the judgment and decree can be ordered”. 6. Evidently the accidental slip/clerical error on the part of the adjudicatory authority is the ground on which correction is sought for. 7. The Court below has rejected the application on three grounds: (i) no appeal against the decree was preferred; (ii) applicants failed to get the judgment in question reviewed; and (iii) from the operative portion of the judgment or decree it could not be inferred as to whether the trial Court had decreed the suit qua Khasra Nos. 667 and 668 or not. 8. At this juncture, it be also observed that the Court, partly allowed the application, in correcting the name of the Mohal from Kanbyal to Kalar, being the second prayer made by the applicants in the very same application. 9. Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure read as under:- “151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 152. Amendment of judgments, 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. 153. 152. Amendment of judgments, 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. 153. General power to amend.—The Court may, at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding”. 10. It is a settled position of law that decree is a formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and it may be either preliminary or final. It is also settled position of law that for determining as to whether an order passed by the Court is a decree or not, what requires to be considered are the pleadings, proceedings and circumstances leading to the passing of the decree. 11. For determining the question as to whether an order passed by a court is a decree or not, it must satisfy the following tests: (i) There must be an adjudication; (ii) Such adjudication must have been given in a suit; (iii) It must have determined the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit;(iv)Such determination must be of a conclusive nature; and (v) There must be a formal expression of such adjudication. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jayalakshmi Coelho Versus Oswald Joseph Coelho, (2001) 4 SCC 181 , has held as under:- “A reference to the following cases on the point may be made: The basis of the provision under section 152 CPC is found on the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit i.e. an act of court shall prejudice no man (Jenk Cent- 118) as observed in a case reported in Assam Tea Corpn. Ltd. V. Narayan Singh, AIR 1981 Gau 41 . Hence, an unintentional mistake of the court which may prejudice the cause of any party must be rectified. Ltd. V. Narayan Singh, AIR 1981 Gau 41 . Hence, an unintentional mistake of the court which may prejudice the cause of any party must be rectified. In another case reported in L. Janakirama Iyer v. P.M. Nilakanta Iyer, AIR 1962 SC 633 it was found that by mistake the words “net profit” were written in the decree in place of “mesne profit”. This mistake was found to be clear by looking to the earlier part of the judgment. The mistake was held to be inadvertent. In Bhikhi Lal v. Tribeni, AIR 1965 SC 1935 it was held that a decree which was in conformity with the judgment was not liable to be corrected. In another case reported in Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1047 it has been observed that arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing whereas an error arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake on the part of the court liable to be corrected. To illustrate the point, it has been indicated as an example that in a case where the order may contain something which is not mentioned in the decree would be a case of unintentional omission or mistake. Such omissions are attributable to the court which may say something or omit to say something which it did not intend to say or omit. No new arguments or rearguments on merits are required for such rectification of mistake. In a case reported in Dwarka Das v. State of M.P., (1999) 3 SCC 500 this Court has held that the correction in the order or decree should be of the mistake or omission which is accidental and not intentional without going into the merits of the case. It is further observed that the provisions cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original decree so as to in effect pass an effective judicial order after the judgment in the case. It is further observed that the provisions cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original decree so as to in effect pass an effective judicial order after the judgment in the case. The trial court had not granted the interest pendent lite though such a prayer was made in the plaint but on an application moved under Section 152 CPC the interest pendent lite was awarded by correcting the judgment and the decree on the ground that non-awarding of the interest pendent lite was an accidental omission. It was held that the High Court was right in setting aside the order. Liberal use of the provisions under Section 152 CPC by the courts beyond its scope has been deprecated. While taking the above view this Court had approved the judgment of the Madras High Court in Thirugnanavalli Ammal v. P. Venugopala Pillai, AIR 1940 Mad 29 and relied on Maharaj Putta Lal v. Sripal Singh, AIR 1937 Oudh 191. Similar view is found to have been taken by this Court in a case reported in State of Bihar v. Nilmani Sahu, (1996) 11 SCC 528 , where the Court in the guise of arithmetical mistake on reconsideration of the matter came to a fresh conclusion as to the number of trees and the valuations thereof in the matter which had already been finally decided. Similarly in the case of Bai Shakriben v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 4 SCC 533 this Court found omission of award of additional amount under Section 23 (1-A), enhanced interest under Section 28 and solatium etc. could not be treated as clerical or arithmetical error in the order. The application for amendment of the decree in awarding of the amount as indicated above was held to be bad in law.” In the very same report their Lordships have held that inherent powers would generally be available to all courts and authorities irrespective of the fact whether the provisions contained under Section 152 CPC may or may not strictly apply to any particular proceeding. In a matter where it is clear that something which the court intended to do but the same was accidentally slipped or any mistake creeps in due to clerical or arithmetical mistake it would only advance the ends of justice to enable the court to rectify such mistake. In a matter where it is clear that something which the court intended to do but the same was accidentally slipped or any mistake creeps in due to clerical or arithmetical mistake it would only advance the ends of justice to enable the court to rectify such mistake. But before exercise of such power the court must be legally satisfied and arrive at a valid finding that the order or the decree contains or omits something which was intended to be otherwise, that is to say, while passing the decree the court must have in its mind that the order or the decree should be passed in a particular manner but that intention is not translated into the decree or order due to clerical, arithmetical error or accidental slip. The facts and circumstances may provide clue to the fact as to what was intended by the court but unintentionally the same does not find mention in the order or the judgment or something which was not intended to be there stands added to it. Their Lordships further contended that the power of rectification of clerical, arithmetical errors or accidental slip does not empower the court to have a second thought over the matter and to find that a better order or decree could or should be passed. There should not be reconsideration of merits of the matter to come to a conclusion that it would have been better and in the fitness of things to have passed an order as sought to be passed on rectification. On a second thought the court may find that it may have committed a mistake in passing an order in certain terms but every such mistake does not permit its rectification in exercise of the court’s inherent powers as contained under Section 152 CPC. It is to be confined to something initially intended but left out or added against such intention. 13. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan Versus Hari Prasad Bhuyan and others, (2003) 1 SCC 197 further observed that:- “14. How to solve this riddle ? It is to be confined to something initially intended but left out or added against such intention. 13. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan Versus Hari Prasad Bhuyan and others, (2003) 1 SCC 197 further observed that:- “14. How to solve this riddle ? In our opinion, the successful party has no other option but to have recourse to Section 152 CPC which provides for clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission being corrected at any time by the court either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. A reading of the judgment of the High Court shows that in its opinion the plaintiffs were found entitled to succeed in the suit. There is an accidental slip or omission in manifesting the intention of the court by couching the reliefs to which the plaintiffs were entitled in the event of their succeeding in the suit. Section 152 enables the court to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. Power of the court to amend its orders so as to carry out the intention and express the meaning of the Court at the time when the order was made was upheld by Bowen, L.J. in Swire, Re, Mellor v. Swire, (1885) 30 Ch D 239 subject to the only limitation that the amendment can be made without injustice or on terms which preclude injustice. Lindley, L.J. observed that if the order of the court, though drawn up, did not express the order as intended to be made then “there is no such magic in passing and entering an order as to deprive the court of jurisdiction to make its own records true, and if an order as passed and entered does not express the real order of the court, it would, as it appears to me, be shocking to say that the party aggrieved cannot come here to have the record set right, but must go to the House of Lords by way of appeal”.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Niyamat Ali Molla Versus Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. and others, (2007) 13 SCC 421 was dealing with the case where decree holder had sought detailed description of the suit property to be inserted in the decree. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Niyamat Ali Molla Versus Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. and others, (2007) 13 SCC 421 was dealing with the case where decree holder had sought detailed description of the suit property to be inserted in the decree. Plaintiff’s application, so filed under Section 152 CPC having been allowed was subject matter of challenge before the Court. In the factual backdrop, Court held that 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 neminem gravabit i.e. nobody shall be prejudiced by an act of court. 15. The apex Court in S. Satnam Singh and others Versus Surender Kaur and another, (2009) 2 SCC 562 has held that ordinarily a party should not be prejudiced by an act of Court. The power of amendment, in a case of this nature, as noticed hereinbefore, would not only be dependent upon the power of the Court but also the principle that a Court shall always be ready and willing to rectify the mistake it has committed. 16. Thus power of the Court to amend its judgment and decree on the grounds referred to and specified is statutory in nature. Court is duty bound to exercise such power, both in equity and in the interest of justice. However, such power is only to meet the legislative intent within the settled parameters of law. 17. The Code of Civil Procedure recognizes 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 should, however, not be construed in a pendantic 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. 18. It cannot also exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake or slip occurred in the decree or order. This provision should, however, not be construed in a pendantic 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. 18. Perusal of the plaint reveals the subject matter to be four Khasra numbers i.e. 663, 664, 667 and 668, situated in Mohal Kanbyal, Mauza Lunj, Tehsil and District Kangra. Written statement records the defendants to be “owners in possession of the suit land”, which fact stood refuted in the replication. 19. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiffs have locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct? OPD. 9. Whether the land in suit is in possession of the defendants, as alleged? OPD. Relief. 20. Crucially trial Court found the defendants not to be “in possession of the suit land” and finding the plaintiffs’ possession, over “the suit land” to be adverse qua the defendants, based on the revenue entries, reflecting the possession of the plaintiffs’ predecessor-in- interest to be hostile, since the year 1975, answered issues No.1 and 9 in their favour. Significantly such findings have attained finality and the decree as affirmed by the lower Appellate Court remained unassailed, which undisputedly has attained finality. 21. Material, so placed on record, as discussed by the trial Court only leads to one inference and that being the subject matter of the lis, inter se parties, which stood adjudicated by the Courts below, to be the entire suit land comprising Khasra Nos. 663, 664, 667 and 668. Even the evidence, oral/documentary is clearly suggestive of such fact. 21. Material, so placed on record, as discussed by the trial Court only leads to one inference and that being the subject matter of the lis, inter se parties, which stood adjudicated by the Courts below, to be the entire suit land comprising Khasra Nos. 663, 664, 667 and 668. Even the evidence, oral/documentary is clearly suggestive of such fact. It is in this backdrop that the Court below erred in partly dismissing the plaintiffs’ application in not correcting the typing mistake/clerical error erroneously crept in, in not recording Khasra Nos. 667 and 668 either in the operative portion of the judgment or the decree sheet. Court erred in dismissing the application on the grounds referred to earlier, which are legally unsustainable in law, in view of the discussion herein earlier. There was no question of the plaintiffs seeking review, in view of special statutory provisions. 22. For all the aforesaid reasons, revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.01.2004 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Civil Misc. Application No. 303/03, titled as Madan Lal & others Versus Nikko Ram & others, to the extent it rejects petitioners’ prayer is quashed and set aside. Plaintiffs’ application is allowed. Judgment and decree dated 31.07.1997 passed by Sub- Judge (I) Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 154/91, titled as Madan Lal & others Versus Nikko Ram & others, stand corrected with the inclusion of Khasra Nos. 667 and 668 alongwith Khasra Nos. 663 and 664. 23. In view of the above, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.