ORDER : 1. Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S. No.931 of 2008. Said suit was filed for possession of the suit property from the defendants after terminating their tenancy. Suit was decreed on 03rd February 2014 directing delivery of possession and also for holding enquiry regarding mesne profits. 2. Regular Appeal No.35 of 2014 filed by defendants against the said order was dismissed on 22nd July 2014. Regular Second Appeal No.100696 of 29th 2014 was also dismissed on October 2014. Special Leave petition bearing SLP No.1118 of 2015 filed against the said judgment was also dismissed on 22nd January 2015 granting time till the end of June 2015 to vacate the premises, making it clear that if defendants failed to vacate the premises as ordered, they would be liable for contempt. It was also made clear that they shall also pay arrears of rent within four weeks. This order is produced at Annexure ‘F’. 3. Defendants did not vacate the premises as directed by the Apex Court. Plaintiffs have instituted execution proceedings in E.P. No.726 of 2014. The judgment debtors / defendants raised objection contending that in the judgment passed by trial court as also the appellate court, the suit property in one place had been referred to as Sy. No. 32/2/2A and not as 35/2/2A and therefore, until and unless the mistake was corrected, decree could not be executed. 4. In their wisdom, plaintiffs filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking correction of the mistake committed in mentioning the property number in paragraph 12 of the judgment of trial court. This application was resisted by judgment debtors / defendants. Trial court rejected this application. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the copy of plaint. The suit schedule property has been correctly described as R.S.No.35/2/2A situated at Koravi Galli, Wada Angol, Belagavi, with its measurement and shop number as H.No.709. The schedule mentioned in the plaint admits of no ambiguity. Defendants have gone for trial with their eyes wide open regarding this description of property and they have admitted their tenancy in respect of the suit property under the plaintiffs. Unfortunately, while passing the judgment, in paragraph 12, trial court committed a mistake in incorrectly mentioning the property. The schedule mentioned in the plaint admits of no ambiguity. Defendants have gone for trial with their eyes wide open regarding this description of property and they have admitted their tenancy in respect of the suit property under the plaintiffs. Unfortunately, while passing the judgment, in paragraph 12, trial court committed a mistake in incorrectly mentioning the property. It is useful to extract, four lines in paragraph 12 of the judgment of trial court to understand the nature of mistake it has committed. It reads thus: “12) Plaintiff contention is that they are the owners of the suit property. The plaintiff to prove the same has produced the RTC with respect to the suit property bearing Sy.No.32/2/2A as per Ex.P.1. ……” 6. Ex.P1 certified copy of RTC of the land discloses that it pertains to Sy.No.35/2/2A and not Sy.No.32/2/2A. Therefore, apparently, it is the mistake committed by the Court in wrongly referring to the survey number, which was correctly mentioned in Ex.P1. 7. It is necessary to notice here that while passing the decree, correct number has been mentioned in the decree. What has to be executed is the decree passed. There is no impediment for executing the decree in respect of the suit schedule property, which has been specifically and correctly reflected in the decree passed. 8. Similar mistake is committed while referring to the property by the appellate court. However, even the decree passed by the appellate court also refers the correct number i.e., Survey No.35/2/2A and shop premises No.709. 9. In such circumstances, trial court, instead of taking a pragmatic view of the matter and correcting the mistake that was committed by it while mentioning wrong survey number in the judgment, has dismissed the application by adopting a pedantic view and stating that similar mistake had been committed even in the appellate court and therefore, it was competent for the appellate court to correct the mistake. The approach adopted by the Court below is completely erroneous. 10. It has to be stated here that no one shall be prejudiced by the mistake of the Court. This is the well established principle contained in the maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit. The mistake of the Court here is even when its mistake was brought to its notice, it has not corrected it. The mistake is due to typographical error. 11. Therefore, order passed by Court below is set aside. This is the well established principle contained in the maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit. The mistake of the Court here is even when its mistake was brought to its notice, it has not corrected it. The mistake is due to typographical error. 11. Therefore, order passed by Court below is set aside. Application filed seeking correction of typographical mistake is allowed. Necessary correction shall be carried out in the judgment of trial court in the third line of paragraph 12 by mentioning the survey number as 35/2/2A instead of 32/2/2A. It is needless, however, to observe that inspite of such typographical mistake, there was no impediment for the Executing Court to execute the decree, inasmuch as neither the parties were under any confusion with regard to the suit property nor there is any ambiguity in the judgment and decree read as a whole regarding the identity and description of suit property, particularly because, the decree of trial court as well as appellate court are very clear in mentioning the suit property. In addition, it has to be noticed that the judgment-debtors cannot be permitted to take up such contention, because, the Apex Court has made it clear that they shall vacate the premises by the end of June 2015 or otherwise it would amount to contempt of the Apex Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.