JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This petition challenges the order dated 21.4.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balasore in T.S. No.246 of 1989-I. By the said order, learned trial court allowed the application of the decree-holder opposite party to amend the decree. 2. This case has a chequered history. Opposite party no.1 as plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of an area of Ac.0.307 dec. of mouza-Puruna Balasore. During pendency of the suit, defendant no.7 died. An application for substitution was filed. The same was allowed. Consolidated plaint was filed. In the consolidation plaint, the mouza has been mentioned as ‘Sunhat’. The suit was decreed. Assailing the judgment and decree, defendant nos.7(ka) and (kha) filed RFA No.60 of 2004. During pendency of the appeal, plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the suit schedule property from Ac.0.94 dec. to Ac.0.13 dec. The application for amendment was allowed. The appeal was dismissed. While the matter stood thus, plaintiff levied Execution Case No.1 of 2011. A petition was filed under Section 151 read with Section 152 CPC for correction of Mouza-Puruna Balasore in place of ‘Sunhat’. The same having been allowed, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 27031 of 2011. This Court by order dated 1.12.2011 set aside the order of the learned trial court and directed the court below to hear the petition afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Again, the petitioner moved this Court in WP(C) No. 2691 of 2012. This Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the learned trial court to hear the application filed by the decree-holder treating the same to be under Section 152 CPC. After hearing the parties at length, learned trial court assigned the following reasons and allowed the application; “After hearing the rival submissions of both the sides so also after going through the case record, the petition, the objection and the decisions cited by both the parties, I am of the opinion that the error pointed out in the plaint and the decree is formal in nature. Further on perusal of the original plaint filed on 10.04.1989 by the plaintiff, it is seen that the plaintiff had mentioned the Mouza in MS as “Puruna Balasore” but subsequently during amendment, the Mouza in MS has been mentioned as “Sunhat” instead of “Puruna Balasore”. Further on perusal of the original plaint filed on 10.04.1989 by the plaintiff, it is seen that the plaintiff had mentioned the Mouza in MS as “Puruna Balasore” but subsequently during amendment, the Mouza in MS has been mentioned as “Sunhat” instead of “Puruna Balasore”. So, this is merely a bona fide clerical mistake on the part of the plaintiff/DHR. Further the mistake is formal in nature and the rights of the defendants/JDRs are in no way being affected. Section 152, CPC says that this Court has inherent power to correct any clerical mistake crept in the judgment and the decree or in the record. If this clerical error is not corrected then the plaintiff will not be entitled to enjoy the fruits of the decree after battling for around more than three decades for getting justice in the Court of law…” 3. Heard Mr. P.K Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Mantry, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the plaint schedule, the mouza has been described as “Puruna Balasore” but subsequently, the plaintiff filed consolidated plaint stating mouza to be ‘Sunhat’. The suit has been dismissed. Thereafter, defendants filed appeal. The judgment and decree was confirmed. Thereafter, decree-holder filed an application to amend the decree. Since the mistake has not been committed by the court, learned trial court has committed manifest illegality in amending the decree. He cited the decision of this Court in the case of Jayanta Kumar Rath (since dead) through L.Rs v. Pravas Kumar Rath (since dead) through L.Rs, 2016 (I) ILR – CUT 969. 5. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties supported the submissions of Mr. P.K. Mishra. 6. Per contra, Mr. S. Mantry, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, submitted that the instant petition at the behest of the petitioner is not maintainable. The petitioner sold his entire land having an area of Ac.0.24 dec. on 18.5.2011 to one Asim Kumar Das by means of registered sale deed during pendency of the execution case. Thereafter, Asim Kumar Das sold his land to one Sk. Abdul Latif by means of registered sale deed dated 26.9.2011. After purchase, Sk. The petitioner sold his entire land having an area of Ac.0.24 dec. on 18.5.2011 to one Asim Kumar Das by means of registered sale deed during pendency of the execution case. Thereafter, Asim Kumar Das sold his land to one Sk. Abdul Latif by means of registered sale deed dated 26.9.2011. After purchase, Sk. Abdul Latif instituted C.S. No. 331/715 of 2016-I in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore impleading the present opposite party as plaintiff. He further submitted that in the original plaint, the name of the village has been mentioned as “Puruna Balasore”. While filing consolidation plaint instead of “Puruna Balasore”, mouza-Sunhat has been written. The defendants did not raise objection. Both parties knowing fully well about the description of the property and identity of the suit land adduced evidence. The decree-holder must be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the decree. 7. Since the judgment-debtor petitioner has sold his land during pendency of the execution case, he has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the learned trial court. In the result, the petition, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.