JUDGMENT : Z.K. Saiyed, J. 1. The applicants have filed present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Misc. Civil Application No. 2 of 2010 and allow the Misc. Civil Application No. 2 of 2010 and further prayed to pass order restraining the respondents, their agents, successors, transferee and assignees from acting in any manner contrary to partition deed dated 2.3.1972 and direct them to maintain status quo of suit property. 2. The brief facts of the case are that:- 3. The dispute is in respect of land bearing Survey No. 255 and 708 of village Gorva, Dist. Sub-Dist. Vadodara. 4. One Lallubhai Patel was the owner and occupier of the said land. The pedigree of the Lallubhai is as under:- Lallubhai Jadavben widow Expired Rasikbhai Son Kantibhai Son 5. Originally the said Lallubhai an agriculturist was the owner and occupier of six survey numbers 703/1, 4/1, 251 paikee, 252/2, 255 and 708 which he inherited from partition between him and his brothers. In the year 1970, the oral family settlement took place between the Lallubhai and his two sons which is clearly reflected in the entry No. 2361 (Annexure-H, Page No. 100). In the said family settlement, survey No. 255 and 708 came in the share of present respondent i.e. Kantibhai Lallubhai Patel. 6. Because of the circumstances as explained in the written agreement, the family of the Lallubhai entered into further written family settlement in 1972 and more particularly on 2.3.1972 (Annexure-I). As per the written family settlement of year 1972 signed by all the parties, it is very clear that the property came in the share of Lallubhai was disposed for family needs and that in the share of his son Rasikbhai was acquired by the Government. In this view of the matter, the only two properties i.e. Survey No. 255 and 708 remains with the family, which as per the family settlement of 1970 came in the share of Kantibhai Lallubhai (respondent). In the above facts and circumstances, entire family in the year 1972, jointly decided to divide the above two survey Nos. 255 and 708 between the Lallubhai (father), Rasikbhai (present applicant) and Kantibhai (respondent). In the above facts and circumstances, entire family in the year 1972, jointly decided to divide the above two survey Nos. 255 and 708 between the Lallubhai (father), Rasikbhai (present applicant) and Kantibhai (respondent). There was an important clause in the written family arrangement on last page that if Lallubhai passes away then his share will be transferred in the share of his wife Jadavben and his sons would not claim any rights in that share. 7. After the last family settlement dated 2.3.1972 (Annexure-I), the father i.e. Lallubhai unfortunately expired on 15.3.1973, and the effect of the family arrangement dated 2.3.1972 was not mutated in revenue records by Kantibhai as he was the eldest and karta of the family. After the demise of the Lallubhai, the dispute arose between the applicant and the respondent as he wanted to sell off the said properties as they were in his name as per the revenue records without abiding to the written family settlement of 1972 and therefore the present applicant instituted a Civil Suit No. 794/1987 (Annexure-A, Page-23) along with the mother (Jadavben) against the present respondent. The above suit ex-parte decreed (Annexure-B, Page-33). 8. The respondent herein challenged the above ex-parte decree with an application for condonation of delay 143/2000 (Annexure-C, Page-43) by filing Restoration Application No. 160/2000, in which the respondent himself admits that the parties are together as on today and Rasikbhai has 1/3rd share in the suit property he (Kantibhai) has 1/3rd share and the dispute is only for the 1/3rd share of Lallubhai as he has passed away. 9. The case of the present respondent in the delay condonation application and restoration application is to the effect that the share of the father is required to be distributed amongst all the heirs including him. 10. Thereafter, with consent of the parties, one compromise pursis filed in the main Civil Suit i.e. No. 794/1987 (the said compromise pursis is at page-55, Annexure-D). In the said compromise pursis, it is clearly mentioned particularly in 2nd and 3rd para that all the parties now abide by the family settlement of 2.3.1972. 11. Thereafter, one of the joint property i.e. survey No. 708 was jointly developed and all the heirs of Lallubhai taken their respective share. 12. But after some time, the respondent herein claims the exclusive ownership of survey No. 255 and therefore, the present applicant filed Misc. 11. Thereafter, one of the joint property i.e. survey No. 708 was jointly developed and all the heirs of Lallubhai taken their respective share. 12. But after some time, the respondent herein claims the exclusive ownership of survey No. 255 and therefore, the present applicant filed Misc. Application No. 2/2010 U/s. 152 of C.P.C. for correction of typographical error in the judgment of the court dated 11.8.2000. 13. The said application rejected by the Trial Court by judgment and order dated 31.5.2013 stating that this is not a fit case to be exercised under sec. 152 of the Code. Against which the present applicant preferred present civil revision application. 14. Mr. Mehul Shah, learned counsel appearing with Mr. Jigar Raval, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the compromise pursis (Annexure-D, Page-55), it is clear that all the parties agreed to abide by the family settlement dated 2.3.1972 (Annexure-I, Page-101). 15. He has submitted that the Trial Court in the final judgment and decree recorded the entire compromise pursis as it is but in the operative portion instead of mentioning the correct date of the family settlement i.e. 2.3.1972, by mistake mentioned the date of earlier family settlement i.e. 21.3.1970. 16. He has submitted that the above mistake is absolutely a clerical and arithmetical mistake by the court while passing the final judgment/decree on the basis of compromise pursis. After recording the entire compromise between the parties, the Trial Court in the operative portion ought to have mentioned, the date of the family settlement as 2.3.1972, but by mistake it is mentioned as 21.3.1970. The applicant say so as the first para of compromise pursis divides the two survey Nos. in three equal parts and the second and third para clearly and loudly states that the parties will abide and act according to written family arrangement as on 2.3.1972. 17. He has submitted that the above mistake in the operative portion of the order of the Trial Court is required to be corrected by the Court only U/s. 152 of C.P.C. as this is a fit case for sec. 152 of C.P.C. and the court has powers to exercise it in the matter. 18. 17. He has submitted that the above mistake in the operative portion of the order of the Trial Court is required to be corrected by the Court only U/s. 152 of C.P.C. as this is a fit case for sec. 152 of C.P.C. and the court has powers to exercise it in the matter. 18. He has submitted that even the pleadings of the present respondent in delay condonation application 143/2000 (Annexure-C, Page-43) and restoration application 160/2000 (Page-49), clearly suggest that the respondent also admitting the written family settlement of 2.3.1972 and not of 21.3.1970. 19. He has submitted that now, only because of the clerical mistake on the part of the trial court while passing the final judgment/decree, the respondent herein wants to take undue advantage and wants to grab the entire family property against the compromise pursis and against his own pleadings. He has submitted that the decree was passed in the year 2000 and till the year 2009 no entry was mutated in the revenue record and both the parties were acting as per the written family settlement dated 2.3.1972. He has submitted that cause of action arisen from the date when the property is sold by the Kantibhai without the knowledge of present applicant. 20. In support of his above submissions he has relied on the decision in the case of Srihari (dead) through legal representative Ch. Niveditha Reddy vs. Syed Maqdoom Shah and Ors., reported in, (2015) 1 SCC 607 (para-12) and submitted that Apex Court has held that, there is another qualification, namely, such an error shall be apparent on the face of the record, that is to say, it is not an error which depends for its discovery, on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. 21. He has relied on the decision in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla vs. Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. and Ors., reported in, (2007) 13 SCC 421 and submitted that Apex Court has held that under Sections 152 & 151 of Civil Procedure Code and under Order 6 and Rule 15 for amendment of decree and plaint scope of Court's power are pleadings should be read liberally as a whole and not in a pedantic manner. 22. He has relied on the decision in the case of Tilak Raj vs. Baikunthi Devi (D) by Lrs. 22. He has relied on the decision in the case of Tilak Raj vs. Baikunthi Devi (D) by Lrs. reported in 2009 (1) GLH 474 and submitted that Apex Court has held that, under Section 152 of the Code any mistake which is found to be clerical in nature should be allowed to be rectified by exercising inherent power vested in the Court by sub-serving the cause of justice. 23. He has relied on the decision in the case of Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan vs. Hari Prasad Bhuyan and Ors., reported in (2003) 1 SCC 197 and submitted that Apex Court has held that, every judgment, whether of trial Court or appellate Court, must indicate clearly the relief or relief’s to which a party has been found entitled so that a self-contained decree conforming therewith can be drawn up. Further held that, the operative part of judgment should be clear and precise so that in case objection are raised later, a bare reading of the judgment and decree would be enough to show whether the two agree with each other. 24. He has submitted that present applicant approached the Honorable Supreme Court against the judgment and order dated 27.9.2012 passed in Appeal From Order No. 378 of 2010. The Honorable Supreme Court observed that, observations made by the High Court in the impugned order shall not influence the consideration of the suit which obviously shall be heard and decided on the evidence that may be led in the suit by the parties and the review petition shall be heard on its own merit. He has submitted that this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Vora, J.) admitted present revision application vide order dated 7.10.2014 against the order impugned in the present application and stayed the impugned order dated 31.5.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Civil Misc. Application No. 2 of 2010 qua the respondents. 25. He has submitted that in the above facts and circumstances and considering the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court, the present revision application is required to be allowed. 26. Heard Mr. Nikhil Kariel, learned counsel for the respondents. He has submitted that under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code Court has no jurisdiction to correct the error. 26. Heard Mr. Nikhil Kariel, learned counsel for the respondents. He has submitted that under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code Court has no jurisdiction to correct the error. He has submitted that present applicants have no remedy under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code but they may resort to some other remedy. He has submitted that suit was filed by the present applicants and permanent stay was prayed. The trial Court granted ex-parte stay. He has submitted that correction of decree sought for has become final between the parties. He has submitted that decree passed in suit is absolutely correct. He has submitted that typographical error is not in decree but typographical error is in the Karardad. He has submitted that there cannot be any correction which would change the nature of decree. He has submitted that it is not a typographical error. He has submitted that applicants have made application after a period of 12 years. 27. In support of his submissions he has relied on the decision in the case of Srihari (dead) through legal representative Ch. Niveditha Reddy vs. Syed Maqdoom Shah and Ors., reported in, (2015) 1 SCC 607 para-13 and submitted that Apex Court has held that, Section 152 of the Code can be invoked for the limited purpose of correcting clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes in the judgments or accidental omissions. 28. He has relied on the decision in the case of State of Punjab vs. Darshan Singh, reported in, (2004) 1 SCC 328 , para-31 and submitted that Apex Court has held that, exercise of said power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate passing of effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. 29. He has relied on the decision in the case of Sarup Singh and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr., reported in, (2011) 11 SCC 198 para-31 and submitted that Apex Court has held that, the reference case and the matter of payment of compensation to the appellants become final and binding after the award was passed and the judgment was pronounced by the Reference Court and further by the High Court and thereafter, no appeal having been filed in this Court. Such a judgment and decree which has become final and binding could not have been reopened by the High Court on the basis of revision application filed under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code. Lastly he has prayed to dismiss present Revision Application. 30. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. I have gone through the orders of trial Court as well as order of First Appellate Court passed in the proceedings before them. I have gone through the submissions advanced by both the parties and decisions cited by both the parties. I have gone through the documentary evidence produced on record. On going through the compromise arrived at between the parties it is clear that the parties had agreed to act upon the written family settlement dated 2.3.1972 and not the oral family settlement dated 21.3.1970 and it is admitted by the respondents herein. Even in the decree and order of trial Court reproduced by it there is reference of written family settlement dated 2.3.1972 to be acted upon by the parties. Despite the same the trial Court has committed error in referring the oral family settlement dated 21.3.1970 instead of written family settlement dated 2.3.1972. Even under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code it is provided that:- "Section 152 :- Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgment, decree or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of it's motion or on the application of any of the parties." Thus, the error committed by the trial Court was clerical or arithmetical mistake which was required to be corrected by it on an application being made by the present applicants. 31. For the foregoing reasons and observations made hereinabove the Civil Revision Application is allowed. The order impugned dated 31.5.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Civil Misc. Application No. 2 of 2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. Both the parties are directed to act according to the written family settlement dated 2.3.1972. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. After pronouncement of the judgment Mr. Nikhil Kariel, learned counsel has requested to stay this order for a period of six weeks. Mr. Jigar Raval, learned counsel has objected to such request. Both the parties are directed to act according to the written family settlement dated 2.3.1972. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. After pronouncement of the judgment Mr. Nikhil Kariel, learned counsel has requested to stay this order for a period of six weeks. Mr. Jigar Raval, learned counsel has objected to such request. Looking to the facts of the case and circumstances of the case, operation and implementation of present order shall stand stayed for a period of four weeks from today.