ORDER : The civil revision petitioner preferred L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1999, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, challenging the Award, dated 09.01.1994, passed by the Special Tahsildar (A.D.W.), Devakottai, in Award No.8/96-97, in respect of the lands in S.No.109/9 of Poolangurchi Village, Thiruppathur Taluk, Pasumpon Thevar Thirumagan District. 2. The land acquisition original petition was contested by the Referring Officer by filing his objections and the Court below, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on behalf of the respective parties, finally disposed of the land acquisition original petition, by Judgment and Decree dated 15.06.2004, in the following manner : (i) That the claimant is entitled to get compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.4032/- per cent, 2 Acres 48 Cents, total amount of Rs.9,99,936/-. (ii) That the claimant is entitled to get solatium on the award amount at the rate of 30% at Rs.2,99,980.80. (iii) That the claimant is entitled to get interest on the award amount of Rs.9,99,936/- at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of Sec.4(1) notification, on 12.01.1994 to 16.06.2004 (10 years, 5 months and 3 days) till date interest amount of Rs.12,50,920/-. (iv) That the claimant is entitled to get interest on the award amount of Rs.9,99,936/- at the rate of 9% from the date of i.e., delivery of the acquired land till date of deposit of the award amount for a period of one year. (v) That in default of payment of award amount within one year, the claimant is entitled to get interest on the award amount at the rate of 15% per annum. (vi) That the Referring Officer will deposit the award amount with interest and solatium on or before 16.09.2004. (vii) That the Additional Government Pleader cost of fixed at Rs.5,000/-. (viii) That the claimant do bear his own cost of Rs.3661.50.” 3. (vi) That the Referring Officer will deposit the award amount with interest and solatium on or before 16.09.2004. (vii) That the Additional Government Pleader cost of fixed at Rs.5,000/-. (viii) That the claimant do bear his own cost of Rs.3661.50.” 3. Thereafter, it is found that according to the petitioner, on receipt of a copy of the said Judgment and Decree and on a perusal of the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree furnished to him, it is his case that the said Judgment and Decree are silent about the entitlement of grant of interest on the solatium amount to which, the petitioner is legally entitled to as per the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act and also as per the principles enunciated by the decisions of the Apex Court and High Courts and therefore, according to the petitioner, inasmuch as the Judgment and Decree of the Court below are silent regarding his entitlement of the grant of interest on the solatium awarded and the same has occurred due to accidental slip and omission, it is the case of the petitioner that the same could be amended by the Court below by invoking the power under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus, according to the petitioner, he has preferred E.A.SR.No.3615 of 2004 to amend the Judgment and Decree in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1999 as per the details given in the petition. 4. The above said application is found to have been returned by the Court below on the footing that inasmuch as the land acquisition original petition had been disposed of on 15.06.2004 itself, the Judgment and Decree cannot be amended by invoking Section 152 C.P.C., as detailed by the petitioner in the petition. However, inasmuch as the petitioner persisted in the maintainability of the petition before the Court below for the reason that omission to grant interest on the solatium amount could always be amended and included in the decree even after the disposal of the main case by invoking the power under Section 152 C.P.C., and for the reliefs sought for by way of amendment, the petitioner is not necessitated to prefer any appeal as no excess amount had been claimed as such and therefore, insisted the Court to pass speaking orders if the insistence on the maintainability of the petitioner is not acceded to. Finally, the Court passed an order, dated 06.07.2005, holding that the Court has become functus officio and has no power to order the petition and thereby, the petitioner had been directed to approach the proper forum. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been instituted. 5. The only ground on which the petitioner is challenging the impugned order of the Court below is that inasmuch as he is entitled to the grant of interest on the solatium amount awarded by the Court, as per the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act and also as per the principles enunciated by the various decisions of the Apex Court and High Courts, according to him, the failure on the part of the Court below in including the entitlement of grant of interest of the petitioner on the solatium amount is only an omission in the Judgment and Decree and the same could be cured by amending the Judgment and Decree as such and therefore, according to the petitioner, the Court by invoking the power given under Section 152 Cr.P.C., should have taken the application preferred by the petitioner on file and passed appropriate orders. 6. Per contra, it is the contention of the respondent's counsel that the petitioner has not been granted interest on the solatium amount by the Court below and according to the respondent's counsel, if the same had not been granted in favour of the petitioner and if according to the petitioner, he is entitled to obtain the same as per law and as per the decisions of the Apex Court and High Courts, it is stated that the petitioner should have preferred an appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court in the proper forum and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek amendment of the Judgment and Decree as it is stated that the amendment sought for by the petitioner is not an omission or clerical or arithmetical mistake in the Judgment and Decree of the Court below by way of any accidental slip and therefore, it is contended that the Lower Court is perfect in holding that it has become functus officio and accordingly directed the petitioner to approach the proper forum. 7. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: “152. 7. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: “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.” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that inasmuch as the failure of the Court below to include the entitlement of grant of interest on the solatium amount to which the petitioner is entitled to in the Judgment and Decree as such is only an omission or accidental slip on the part of the Court below and further according to him, inasmuch as the Court below had not made any discussion of the same also in the Judgment and inasmuch as the petitioner is entitled to grant of interest on the solatium amount as per law and also as per the various decisions of the Apex Court and High Courts according to him, the same would fall under the purview of the amendment outlined in Section 152 C.P.C., and therefore, the Court below ought to have taken his application to amend the Judgment and Decree on file and passed suitable orders on merits. 9. However, as rightly putforth by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and also as seen from the provisions of Section 152 C.P.C., it could be seen that only clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission could be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. However, insofar as this case is concerned, the petitioner wants to include the grant of interest on the solatium amount in Clause No.4 of the decree. Therefore, the amendment sought for by the petitioner also would require the other side to putforth his objections by way of oral or documentary evidence, if any, as they deem it fit and in such view of the matter, it is found that the petitioner's contention that the failure on the part of the Court below to include the grant of interest on the solatium amount is merely omission as such cannot be countenanced. Nodoubt, the petitioner may be entitled to the grant of interest on solatium amount as per law and as per the decisions of the Apex Court and High Courts and when the Lower Court has not granted the said relief to the petitioner, if he is aggrieved over the same, the right remedy that is available to him is only to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the Court below. It has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner as to why he had not chosen to prefer appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court. 10. It is also found that the respondent had preferred an appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree of the Court below in A.S.(MD) No.74 of 2005. Nodoubt, the said appeal had come to be dismissed on the failure on the part of the respondent to bring the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner on record. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, steps have been taken to restore the appeal dismissed for default and the same is pending. 11. Be that as it may, when the amendment sought for by the petitioner does not fall under the purview of Section 152 C.P.C., it is found that the Lower Court is right in returning the application preferred by the petitioner with a direction to him to approach the proper forum. 12. The relief sought for by the petitioner to amend the Judgment and Decree towards the grant of interest on the solatium amount cannot be entertained as the same would amount to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original order or decree so as to, in effect, pass an effective judicial order after the judgment had been rendered in the case. With reference to the above position of law, we have the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2006) 1 SCC 380 (U.P.SRTC vs. Imitiaz Hussain), wherein the Apex Court has held as Follows : “7. Section 152 provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. Section 152 provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the same becomes final subject to any further avenues of remedies provided in respect of the same and the very Court or the tribunal cannot, on mere change of view, is not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed except by means of review, if statutorily provided specifically therefor and subject to the conditions or limitations provided therein. The powers under Section 152 of the Code are neither to be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or even said to clothe the Court concerned under the guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered, in its entirety or any portion or part of it. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the Court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 as if it is looking into it for the first time, for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party if at all is to file appeal or revision before the higher forum or review application before the very forum, subject to the limitations in respect of such review. It implies that the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below have been liberally construing and applying the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of Code even after passing of effective orders in the lis pending before them. No Court can, under the cover of the aforesaid sections, modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Dwaraka Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. No Court can, under the cover of the aforesaid sections, modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Dwaraka Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. ( 1999 (3) SCC 500 ) and Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho ( 2001 (4) SCC 181 ). 8. The basis of the provision under Section 152 of the Code is founded on the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' i.e. an act of Court shall prejudice no man. The maxim "is founded upon justice and good sense, and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law", said Cresswell J. in Freeman v. Tranah (ER p.967) (12CB 406). An unintentional mistake of the Court which may prejudice the cause of any party must and alone could be rectified. In Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa ( AIR 1966 SC 1047 ) it was observed that the 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 this point it was said that in a case where the order contains something which is not mentioned in the decree, it would be a case of unintentional omission or mistake as the mistake or omission is 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 re-arguments on merits can be entertained to facilitate such rectification of mistakes. The provision cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original order or decree so as to, in effect, pass an effective judicial order after the judgment in the case.” 13. In the light of the above cited decision of the Apex Court, it is found that only for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes arising out of accidental slip or omission, the power under Section 152 C.P.C., could be invoked. Therefore, it is clear that the provision of Section 152 C.P.C., cannot be invoked to rewrite the Judgment or Decree, after the Judgment had been rendered in the case. 14. Therefore, it is clear that the provision of Section 152 C.P.C., cannot be invoked to rewrite the Judgment or Decree, after the Judgment had been rendered in the case. 14. Following the decision of the Apex Court and in the light of the above discussions, inasmuch as the amendment sought for by the petitioner amounts to rewriting the Judgment and Decree after the same had been rendered in the main case, it is found that the amendment sought for does not fall under Section 152 C.P.C., and therefore, it is held that the Court below was right in directing the petitioner to approach the proper forum for suitable remedies. 15. In conclusion, the impugned order of the Court below does not call for any interference from this Court and accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.