JUDGMENT : Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. This revisional application is directed against the orders dated August 08, 2016 and September 16, 2016 passed by the learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1878 of 2016. By the first impugned order, the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the revisional petitioner under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code") for amendment/correction of the preliminary decree passed in the partition suit. By the second impugned order, the learned Court below rejected the petitioner's application under section 151 of the Code for amendment of the preliminary decree passed in the suit. 2. The facts may be briefly stated. The petitioner filed the above suit against the opposite party No.1 and Sri Srish Narayan Bhattacharya, since deceased claiming partition of the dwelling house at Premises No. 11/B, Radhamadhab Goswamy Lane, P.S. Shyampukur, Kolkata-700073 (hereinafter referred to "the suit property"). In the plaint the petitioner stated that he himself owns 8/15th share of the suit property and the opposite party No.1 and the original defendant No.2, since deceased each owns 2/15th share in the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant No.2, Srish Narayan Bhattacharya, died intestate leaving behind the opposite Nos. (2a), (2b) and (2c) as his heirs and legal representatives. Therefore, the opposite party Nos. (2a) to (2c) were brought on record of the partition suit, in place and stead of the deceased defendant No.2. Initially the opposite parties appeared in the suit but subsequently, they remained absent and did not contest the suit. On July 8, 2011 the learned Court below passed a preliminary decree declaring the petitioner's 8/15th share in the suit property. The learned Court below directed the parties to the suit to make amicable partition of the suit property within 90 days from the date of the decree, in default at the instance of either of the parties a partition commissioner shall be appointed to give effect to the preliminary decree into finality. The said preliminary decree was not challenged by any of the parties to the suit, but at the same time there was no amicable partition of the suit property. Accordingly, by order dated September 4, 2012 the learned Court below appointed the partition commissioner in suit. The said preliminary decree was not challenged by any of the parties to the suit, but at the same time there was no amicable partition of the suit property. Accordingly, by order dated September 4, 2012 the learned Court below appointed the partition commissioner in suit. The partition commissioner, however, in his report filed before the learned Court below found that the petitioner has 11/15th share in the suit property. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17, read sections 151 and 152 of the Code praying for amendment of the plaint filed in the suit, as well as the preliminary decree dated July 8, 2011. The petitioner prayed for amendment of the averments, as well as the prayer portion of the plaint stating that he has 11/15th share in the suit property. He also prayed for correction/amendment of the preliminary decree dated July 08, 2011 to the effect that he is the owner of 11/15th share of the suit property. By order dated September 15, 2015 the learned Court below held that due to a typographical mistake it was mentioned in the plaint that the petitioner is the owner of 8/15th share, in place of 11/15th share, in the suit property and allowed the prayer for amendment of the plaint. By the said order the learned Court below, however, did not allow the prayer for amendment of the preliminary decree on the ground that in a single petition two prayers cannot allowed and that the decree cannot be amended without the amendment of plaint. After the amendment of the plaint .the petitioner filed an application under section 152 of the Code praying for, amendment/correction of the said preliminary decree dated July 08, 2011. By order dated August 08, 2016 the learned Court below rejected the said application of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under section 151 of the Code before the learned Court below praying for amendment of the preliminary decree to correct the arithmetical mistake in declaring his share in the suit property. By order dated September 16, 2016 the learned Court below rejected the said application on the ground that by the earlier order dated August 8, 2016, the petitioner's applications under section 152 of the Code was rejected with elaborate discussion. By order dated September 16, 2016 the learned Court below rejected the said application on the ground that by the earlier order dated August 8, 2016, the petitioner's applications under section 152 of the Code was rejected with elaborate discussion. As mentioned earlier, both the said orders dated August 08, 2016 and September 16, 2016 have been assailed by the petitioner in this revisional application. 3. Assailing the first impugned order dated August 08, 2016, Mr. Sabhyasachi Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the opposite parties did not contest the partition suit, nor did they assail the preliminary decree dated July 8, 2011 passed by the learned Court below. He urged that the opposite parties did not contest even the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17, read with sections 151 and 152 of the Code, nor did they challenge the order dated September 15, 2015 passed by the learned Court below allowing the petitioner to amend his plaint in the partition suit. Therefore, according to Mr. Bhattacharya, when the learned Court below by the order dated September 15, 2015 held that the mistake in the original plaint that the petitioner is the owner of 8/15th share in the suit property, in place of 11/15th share, is a mere typographical mistake the prayer of the petitioner for amendment/correction of the preliminary decree ought not to have been rejected. He also urged that the opposite parties have not filed any objection disputing the correctness of the report filed by the partition commissioner before the learned Court below that the petitioner has 11/15th share of the suit property. On these grounds, it was strenuously urged that the learned Court below fell into an error of law in passing the first impugned order dated August 08, 2016 rejecting the application of the petitioner under section 152 of the Code. In support of the contention advanced in this revisional application, reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1991) 2 SCC 247 and the decision of a learned Single Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Vijaya vs. Jasbir S. Sabarwal reported in (2011) 4 CHN 308 . 4. vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1991) 2 SCC 247 and the decision of a learned Single Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Vijaya vs. Jasbir S. Sabarwal reported in (2011) 4 CHN 308 . 4. Assailing the second impugned order dated September 16, 2016 it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the facts of the present case when the opposite parties have not filed any pleading before the learned Court below disputing the petitioner to be owns 11/15th share of the suit property, the learned Court below ought to have exercised its inherent power under section 151 of the Code to correct the preliminary decree declaring the petitioner the owner of 11/15th share of the suit property. It was submitted that by the second impugned order, the learned Court below failed in exercise the inherent power vested in it under section 151 of the Code to correct the preliminary decree and this Court should set aside the said order. 5. However, Mr. Biswaranjan Bhakat, learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties and opposing the present revisional application submitted in the present case the decision of the learned Court below in the preliminary decree dated July 08, 2011 declaring the petitioner to be the owner of 8/15th share in the suit property is based on the averment made by the petitioner in his original plaint and evidence adduced by himself at the trial of the suit and such finding in the preliminary decree is not vitiated by any clerical or arithmetical mistake nor there is any accidental slip or mission in the said decree. Therefore, according to him, the application of the petitioner under section 152 of the Code was not maintainable and the first impugned order dated August 08, 2016 suffers from no legal infirmity. Referring to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mehta Suraya vs. United Investment Corporation reported in (2002) 2 Cal LT 272 he submitted that section 152 of the Code confers power on the Court to correct only clerical or arithmetical mistake or accidental slip or omission and not to amend the decree, as has been prayed for by the petitioner in this case. 6. I have considered the material records of the case, as well as the arguments advanced by the learned advocates, representing the respective parties. 6. I have considered the material records of the case, as well as the arguments advanced by the learned advocates, representing the respective parties. 7. It is well settled that the basis of the provision under section 152 of the Code is found on the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, that is, an act of Court shall not prejudice no man and hence an unintentional mistake of the Court which may prejudice cause of any party must be rectified. Section 152 of the Code confers power on the Court to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in judgment and decrees or orders or errors arising therein from an accidental slip or omission. An arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, a clerical mistake is a mistake handwriting and 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 correct. An authority for this view can be found in the case of Master Construction Co. (PJ Ltd. vs. State of Orissa reported in AIR 1966 SC 1047 . 8. In the present case, the petitioner in his original plaint stated that each of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2, since deceased has 2/15th share in the suit property. As mentioned earlier, the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party Nos. 2(a) to 2(c), the heirs of the deceased defendant No.2 did not claim their share in the suit property to be in excess of the share mentioned in the plaint. None of the opposite parties challenged the preliminary decree, nor did they file any objection to the report filed by the partition commissioner. They have not even challenged the order dated September 15, 2015 passed by the learned Court below. 9. Even in the plaint the plaintiff petitioner stated that each of the defendant opposite party No.1 and the defendant No.2, since deceased to have 2/15th share in the suit property and such statement remains uncontroverted by the defendants opposite parties. Therefore, it was only an arithmetical mistake in the preliminary decree dated July 8, 2011 passed by the learned Court below, declaring that the plaintiff petitioner has 8/15th share in the suit property. Such mistake is apparent on the face of the record requiring no elaborate argument on any question of fact or law. 10. Therefore, it was only an arithmetical mistake in the preliminary decree dated July 8, 2011 passed by the learned Court below, declaring that the plaintiff petitioner has 8/15th share in the suit property. Such mistake is apparent on the face of the record requiring no elaborate argument on any question of fact or law. 10. In the case of Ram Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court held that in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, even after passing the decree enhancing the compensation amount in respect of plots of land of the petitioner acquired by the Union of India, the Court was empowered under sections 151-153 of the Code to require the Collector to correct the statements made under section 19 of the said Act to include the particulars of the acquired land which were omitted the original statement forwarded to the Court. Even in the case of Ashok Vijaya (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 105 of 1975 thereby allowing an application under sections 152 and 153 of the Code filed by the plaintiffs decree holders in the ejectment suit to correct the description of the suit property. Both the said decisions support the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in this revisional application. 11. In the case of Mehta Suraya (supra) the learned Single Judge held that section 152 of the Code confers power on Court to correct a mistake in a decree. In the present case, in his application under section 152 of the Code the petitioner prayed for amendment/correction of the preliminary decree. When it is clear that the preliminary decree dated July 08, 2011 contained an arithmetical error, the said decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of Mehta Suraya (supra) lends support to the prayer of the petitioner for correction of the said decree. 12. For all the foregoing reasons, I find that the learned Court below fell into an error of law in not correcting the above arithmetical mistake appearing in the preliminary decree dated July 8, 2011 by invoking power under section 152 of the Code. 13. 12. For all the foregoing reasons, I find that the learned Court below fell into an error of law in not correcting the above arithmetical mistake appearing in the preliminary decree dated July 8, 2011 by invoking power under section 152 of the Code. 13. The challenge by the plaintiff petitioner in this revisional application against the first impugned order succeeds and the impugned order dated August 08, 2016 passed by the learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1878 of 2016 stands set aside. The application filed by the plaintiff petitioner under section 152 of the Code is allowed. The learned Court below is directed to correct the preliminary decree dated July 08, 2011 by declaring that the plaintiff petitioner has 11/15th share in the suit property. 14. Since the first impugned order dated August 08, 2016 stands set aside, the challenge made against the second impugned order dated September 16, 2016 has become infructuous and it is not necessary to consider the challenge against the said order dated September 16, 2016 on merit. 15. With the above directions, the revisional application, being C.O. 4749 of 2016 stands disposed of. 16. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 17. Let urgent certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.