ORDER : 1. By way of this writ petition, the plaintiff-petitioner has questioned the order dated 30.08.2016 in O.S. No. 190/1997 whereby the Trial Court has rejected his application for correction of the judgment and decree dated 09.07.1999, as passed in the said suit. 2. The relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows: The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit aforesaid (O.S. No. 190/1997) for declaration and injunction against the defendants-respondents while stating the grievance that he was the owner, and in possession, of the land bearing ‘Sy.No. 104/C to the extent of 28 guntas’ at Brahampur, Jewargi Road, Gulbarga, that had been taken over by the respondents for the purpose of laying the road but without making any payment towards compensation. After written statement of denial by the defendants, the Trial Court framed the following issues for determination of the questions involved in the suit: "ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner of suit land Sy.No. 104/C measuring 28 acres and the same has been acquired by the Government for laying the road? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive the compensation amount? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the mandatory injunction as prayed for? 4. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is barred by limitation? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree? 6. What decree or order?" 3. In evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and produced four documents. The defendants did not lead any evidence. 4. In its judgment dated 09.07.1999, the Trial Court examined the record and found that the road in question was passing through Sy.No. 104 and was shown as Sy.No. 104/B2 and Sy.No. 104/D. The Court also found that as per the records, the land of Sy.No. 104/C admeasuring 1 acre 8 guntas and Sy.No. 104/E admeasuring 18 guntas was owned by the plaintiff; and in between Sy.Nos.104/C and 104/E, the road was situated in Sy.No. 104/D. 5. It was not the case of the defendants that road was laid in Sy.No. 104 after acquiring the land from the owners of Sy.No. 104, although it was found that other respective owners had been paid the compensation for the property acquired. 6. It was not the case of the defendants that road was laid in Sy.No. 104 after acquiring the land from the owners of Sy.No. 104, although it was found that other respective owners had been paid the compensation for the property acquired. 6. From the document Ex.P-3, the Court was satisfied that the property abutting both sides of Sy.No. 104/D was owned by the plaintiff and hence, came to the conclusion that the road bearing Sy.No. 104/D was part and parcel of property owned by the plaintiff. The Trial Court, therefore held him entitled to compensation with the following observations and findings: “….. From going through Ex.P 3 i.e. map issued by the Tahasildar Gulbarga it is clear that in Sy.No. 104 there is PWD road i.e. the said road is given as Sy.No. 104/B2 and Sy.No. 104/D. In Ex.P 3 the holders name of the entire Sy.No. 104 is given. Sy.No. 104/c measuring 1 acre 8 gunta and Sy.No. 104/E measuring 18 guntas is owned by the plaintiff. In between Sy.No. 104/C and 104/E the road i.e. Sy.No. 104/D is situated. During the course of cross examination of P.W. 1 it is not the case of the defendants that by acquiring the land from the owners of Sy. No. 104 they have made PWD road, The defendants have already paid the compensation to the respective owners of the property acquired by them. But during the course of cross examination it is suggested that plaintiff is not entitled to receive the compensation amount as he is not the owner of the property. From seeing Ex. P3 it is clear that the property situated by the East and West side of the road Sy. No. 104/D is owned by plaintiff hence the road bearing Sy. No. 104/D is part and parcel of the property owned by plaintiff. Hence from the oral evidence of P.W.1 and documentary evidence of plaintiff, he proves that he is owner of the property portion of Sy. No. 104 and he is entitled to receive the compensation. In this case, it is not the case of the defendants that they have already paid the compensation for acquisition of the land to the owners of the particular land. No. 104 and he is entitled to receive the compensation. In this case, it is not the case of the defendants that they have already paid the compensation for acquisition of the land to the owners of the particular land. Hence in the absence of payment of compensation to any other person and there is no denial during the course of cross examination of P.W.1 that the said land is not at all acquired by the defendants and there is no road as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. The case made out by the plaintiff is more probable than that of the defendant. For the above said reasons issue No. 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative.” (underlining supplied) 7. After such finding on issue Nos.1 and 2 and while rejecting the other contentions of the defendants, the Trial Court held the plaintiff-petitioner entitled to compensation and hence, decided issue No. 6 relating to relief in the following terms: "12. ISSUE No. 6 :- In result I proceeded to pass the following ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Hereby it is declared that plaintiff is entitled to receive compensation amount in respect of land acquired by defendants for the purpose of construction of road. Hereby defendants are directed to fix the compensation amount of the said land. Parties are directed to bear their own cost." 8. In view of the above, the position was clear before the Trial Court, and it did find so, that a portion of the land of Sy.No. 104 belonging to the petitioner had been taken over for the purpose of road without payment of compensation and hence, the plaintiff-petitioner was entitled to the compensation for the property he was deprived of. 9. The fact was also clear before the Trial Court that the portion of the land that was taken over for the purpose of road was shown as Sy.No. 104/D. The final conclusion of the Trial Court on issue No. 6 was that the plaintiff-petitioner would be entitled to compensation in respect of the land acquired by the respondents for the purpose of laying of the road. In such finding in issue No. 6, the Trial Court did not mention any survey number, but while drawing up the decree ‘Sy.No. 104/C’ came to be mentioned with reference to the averments in the plaint, where the plaintiff-petitioner himself had mentioned that his land comprising Sy.No. 104/C admeasuring 28 guntas had been taken over by the respondents. Therefore, the decree was drawn up as follows: "Suit of the plaintiff is decreed. It is declared that plaintiff is entitled to receive compensation amount in respect of land Sy.No. 104/C, to the extent of 0-28 guntas situated at Brhampur, Jewargi Road, Gulbarga acquired by defendants for the purpose of construction of road. Further defendants are directed to fix the compensation amount of the said land." 10. As noticed, the judgment and decree aforesaid were passed and drawn up way back on 09.07.1999. More than 16 years later, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application with reference to Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC') seeking amendment of the judgment and decree dated 09.07.1999 so as to show the correct survey number i.e., ‘Sy.No. 104/D’ in place of ‘Sy.No. 104/C’. 11. The plaintiff-petitioner submitted that it was only on account of clerical and typographical error that Sy.No. 104/C came to be mentioned and else, both the aforesaid survey numbers i.e., Sy.No. 104/C and Sy.No. 104/D were belonging to him. It was also submitted that such error was noticed only when the State authorities took up the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner for payment of compensation. According to the plaintiff-petitioner, the mistake got revealed only after verifying the pleadings. 12. The averments in first two paragraphs of this application, having bearing on the matter being considered in this petition, could be noticed as follows: "1. That the plaintiff herein had filed a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S. No. 190/1997 in respect of land Sy.No. 104/D, measuring to the extent of 21 guntas of Brahampur Village, Jewargi Road, Kalaburagi. The said suit came to be decreed by order dated 9-7-1999. As per the order of the Hon'ble Court the plaintiff approached the defendants for the claim granted by the court. 2. It is submitted that when the State took up the claim of the plaintiff which pertains to the acquisition of his land by the State and for payment of compensation. As per the order of the Hon'ble Court the plaintiff approached the defendants for the claim granted by the court. 2. It is submitted that when the State took up the claim of the plaintiff which pertains to the acquisition of his land by the State and for payment of compensation. While verifying the documents of the plaintiff, it was revealed that the Survey number was wrongly mentioned as Sy.No. 104/C instead of Sy.No. 104/D. The plaintiff immediately approached his counsel and verified from the pleadings and from the pleadings it reveal that due to the clerical mistake he has stated the Sy.No. 104/C instead of writing it as Sy.No. 104/D." 13. The defendants-respondents, in their reply, submitted that such an application under Section 152 CPC, filed after a lapse of 17 years, was not maintainable; and such an application, if allowed, would change the nature of the suit property and would cause irreparable loss to them. It was also submitted that the suit property was mentioned as ‘Sy.No. 104/C’ in the plaint and there was no mistake of the Court to be corrected under Section 152 CPC. The Trial Court accepted the submissions of the defendants-respondents and rejected the application so filed by the plaintiff-petitioner while observing as under: “6. Point No. 1. The present suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of declaration and injunction that suit was decreed. Now the present application filed by the plaintiff for amending the judgment and decree. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that, judgment and decree in present case Sy. No. Shown as 104/D instead of 104/C Brahmpur village, Kalaburgi. Further submitted that, this is clerical error in respect of survey Number. I have perused the entire case file and documents. The present case filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of declaration and injunction. That suit was decreed in the year 1999. Plaintiff himself mentioned the suit property as Sy. No. 104/C in his evidence also relied the Sy. No. 104/C notice was issued to the defendants in that notice also Sy. No. 104/C. But now the plaintiff filed present application for amending the judgment and decree so far as this is clerical error. 7. Plaintiff himself mentioned the suit property as Sy. No. 104/C in his evidence also relied the Sy. No. 104/C notice was issued to the defendants in that notice also Sy. No. 104/C. But now the plaintiff filed present application for amending the judgment and decree so far as this is clerical error. 7. Under Section 152 of CPC is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may correct the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decree or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or imitation at any time either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. If the trial Court has come to the conclusion that, it is bona-fide mistake. But in this case there is no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgment and decree. Citation relied by the counsel for plaintiff not applicable to the present case and facts. All the above reason point No. 1 answered in the negative.” 14. Assailing the order aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued, with reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Limited and others, AIR 2008 SC 225 , that the Trial Court has viewed the case from a hyper-technical angle and has ignored the substance of the matter that it had only been a bona fide error as regards the subdivision/hissa number of the land comprising Survey No. 104; and in place of ‘104/D,’ it came to be inadvertently mentioned as ‘104/C’ in the plaint. According to the learned counsel, from the evidence led by the petitioner and the observations made by the Trial Court in its judgment dated 09.07.1999, it is apparent that the matter related only to the land comprising Survey No. 104/D which was taken over, admittedly, without payment of compensation. Learned counsel would submit that even though the application was filed belatedly by the petitioner but the correction of error could not have been declined only on the ground of delay, because such errors/mistakes could be corrected at any time and at any stage of the proceedings, without causing prejudice to the opposite party. 15. Learned counsel would submit that even though the application was filed belatedly by the petitioner but the correction of error could not have been declined only on the ground of delay, because such errors/mistakes could be corrected at any time and at any stage of the proceedings, without causing prejudice to the opposite party. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the judgment and decree dated 09.07.1999 came to be passed only on the basis of the averments in the plaint and it was not open to the petitioner to seek alteration of the decree after nearly 17 years by way of an application under Section 152 CPC. 16. At the first blush, it appears that there is no justification for alteration of the decree after nearly 16-17 years but, on a closer look at the record, this Court is clearly of the view that the application made on behalf of the petitioner ought to have been allowed. 17. It remains one of the fundamentals of the rules of procedure that every Court is constituted for the purpose of dispensation of justice according to law; and as a necessary corollary, inherent in its very constitution are all such powers as may be necessary to do the right and undo a wrong so as to secure the ends of justice. 18. The rules of procedure also recognize that in the course of the proceedings and in disposal of a civil suit, there could be inadvertent mistakes or accidental slips or omissions; and there could also be such defects or errors in any proceeding in the suit, which may require amendment so as to ensure that the real questions or issues raised are determined appropriately. These principles find incorporation in Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which read as under: “151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 152. Saving of inherent powers of Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 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. 153. General power to amend.-The Court may at any time and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding.” 19. In fact, with insertion of Section 153-A by way of the amendment of the year 1976, it has further been made clear that the power to amend a decree or order under Section 152 CPC could be exercised even when an appeal is summarily dismissed by the Appellate Court, notwithstanding that the dismissal of the appeal has the effect of confirming the decree or order appealed against. 20. The Supreme Court in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla (supra) has expounded on the principles that a decree may be corrected by the Court, both in exercise of its power under Section 152 CPC as also under Section 151 CPC; and has also observed that the provisions of Section 152 should not be construed in a pedantic manner. The Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under: "19. Code of Civil Procedure recognises the inherent power of the Court. It is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under Section 152 of the Code but also inherent power in general. The Courts also have duty to see that the records are true and present the correct state of affair. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the Court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to review its judgment. It cannot also exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake or slip occurred in the decree or order. This provision, in our opinion, should, however, not be construed in a pedantic manner. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the Court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to review its judgment. It cannot also exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake or slip occurred in the decree or order. This provision, in our opinion, should, however, not be construed in a pedantic manner. A decree may, therefore, be corrected by the Court both in exercise of its power under Section 152 as also under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a power of the Court is well recognized." 21. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court also approved the observations and principles stated in the case of Bela Debi v. Bon Behary Roy and others, AIR 1952 Cal 86 , wherein it was held in no uncertain terms that the Court’s power to amend a decree is not confined only to the clerical or arithmetical errors, but extends even to the pleadings of the parties. The relevant part of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bela Debi (supra), as quoted with approval by the Supreme Court, reads as under: “....I shall now state, what in my opinion, is the true meaning of section 152, Civil P. C. I am not in favour of giving a narrow construction to section 152. I do not agree that section 152 must necessarily refer to an 'accidental slip or omission' of the Court itself, or its ministerial officers. It does not say so in the section itself, and should not be interpreted as such. Where it is the Court's own accidental slip or omission, or that of its ministerial officers, there can be no doubt that the section applies. But it gives power to rectify any accidental slip or omission in a judgment, decree or order, and might include an accidental slip or omission traceable to the conduct of the parties themselves. But it must be an 'accidental slip or omission'. A mistake made by the parties in a, deed upon which the suit is founded, and repeated in the judgment, decree or order, may or may not be an 'accidental slip or omission.' Where it is clear, that such is the case, then I do not see why the Court cannot set it right. A mistake made by the parties in a, deed upon which the suit is founded, and repeated in the judgment, decree or order, may or may not be an 'accidental slip or omission.' Where it is clear, that such is the case, then I do not see why the Court cannot set it right. In doing so, what is going to be rectified is, the judgment decree or order, and it is not at all necessary to rectify either the pleadings or the deed. In making such corrections, however, the Court can only proceed on the footing that there could be no reasonable doubt as to what it really intended to say in its judgment decree or order. It cannot go into any disputed questions.....” (underlining supplied) 22. Thus, the principles are well settled and certain that a Court is essentially for the purpose of doing justice; and justice cannot be denied or declined merely because for a mistake that may even be attributable to any of the parties to the proceedings. Of course, these principles remain subject to the requirement that the correction sought for and proposed should only be of clerical error or accidental slip and the correction, by itself, should not cause injustice to any of the parties to the litigation. 23. When the record of the present case is examined in its totality, it is at once clear that the mentioning of the Sy. No. ‘104/C’ in the plaint, which got percolated in the decree too, had been a clear and simple clerical error and needs to be corrected in order to give an effective meaning to the decree and to allow the plaintiff to avail the fruits thereof. 24. When the findings of the Trial Court in the judgment dated 09.07.1999 are looked at closely, a few basic facts undeniably emerge: first, that the plaintiff had been the owner of Sy. No. 104 and its sub-division came up later; secondly, that the road in question came to be laid cutting across and passing through the land in Sy. No. 104 and this portion of the road was given Sy. No. ‘104/D’; thirdly, that it was in regard to this Sy. No. 104 and its sub-division came up later; secondly, that the road in question came to be laid cutting across and passing through the land in Sy. No. 104 and this portion of the road was given Sy. No. ‘104/D’; thirdly, that it was in regard to this Sy. No. 104/D that the plaintiff stated his grievance, of having been deprived of his land without payment of compensation; fourthly, that the road in question is admittedly situated between Sy.No. 104/C admeasuring 1 acre 8 guntas and Sy. No. 104/E admeasuring 18 guntas; and fifthly, that both Sy.Nos. 104/C and 104/E indisputebly belong to the plaintiff. 25. In fact, it had been the finding of the Trial Court in clear and no uncertain terms that Sy.No. 104/D had been part and parcel of the property owned by the plaintiff and he was entitled to receive compensation in that regard. The specific findings of the Trial Court had also been that the property situated on the eastern and western side of the road in Sy.No. 104/D is owned by plaintiff and hence, the road bearing Sy.No. 104/D is part and parcel of the property owned by plaintiff. It is but clear that the Trial Court was satisfied that the plaintiff had been deprived of the land in Sy. No. 104/D and he was not paid any compensation and hence, was entitled to such compensation. 26. It appears that at the time of delivering the judgment, the Trial Court indeed looked into the requisite depth of the matter and hence, ordered on issue No. 6 that the plaintiff was entitled to receive compensation in respect of the land acquired by the defendants for the purpose of construction of the road; and directed the defendants to fix the amount of compensation accordingly. However, while drawing up the decree on the basis of the judgment, the particulars of land in question came to be mentioned as per the plaint averments; and in the decree, which was not drawn strictly as per the relief granted on issue No. 6, it came to be mentioned that the plaintiff was entitled to receive compensation in respect of land in Sy. No. 104/C to an extent of 0-28 guntas, situated at Brahampur, Jewargi Road, Gulbarga that had been acquired by defendants for the purpose of construction of the road. 27. No. 104/C to an extent of 0-28 guntas, situated at Brahampur, Jewargi Road, Gulbarga that had been acquired by defendants for the purpose of construction of the road. 27. A purposive reading of the judgment and decree on their substance makes it clear that the plaintiff had been granted relief that he was entitled to receive compensation in respect of the land acquired for the purpose of construction of the road. The land acquired for the purpose of construction of the road had been of Sy. No. 104/D as per the very findings in the judgment itself. Therefore, it was a clear case of accidental slip and omission, which, of course, had its origin in the plaint averments but which was required to be corrected to make the decree meaningful and reflective of the relief granted by the Court. 28. However, the Trial Court, while dealing with the application for correction as moved by the petitioner, proceeded with a fundamentally erroneous approach that under Section 152 CPC, only a clerical or arithmetical error in the judgment and decree could be corrected and not the error that might have crept in because of the mistake on the part of a party to the litigation. Such an approach had been too narrow, too unrealistic and too superficial and clearly amount to the Trial Court refusing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law. 29. As noticed, only because a mistake in the decree has its origin in the pleading is not, by itself, decisive of the matter and a Court can, under Section 152 CPC, amend the clerical errors in a decree even if the error may have first occurred in the pleading. 30. For what has been observed and discussed hereinabove, it is apparent that in fact, the body of the judgment, the Trial Court has found that the land of Sy. No. 104/D belonging to the plaintiff had gone in road and the plaintiff was entitled for compensation in that regard. The error of the mentioning of survey number cannot be allowed to operate as foreclosure of the rights of the plaintiff. 31. There are other significant features of the case, for which too, this Court finds the prayer made by the plaintiff/petitioner genuine and bona fide and rather it appears that for not granting this prayer, a substantial injustice may occur to both parties. 32. 31. There are other significant features of the case, for which too, this Court finds the prayer made by the plaintiff/petitioner genuine and bona fide and rather it appears that for not granting this prayer, a substantial injustice may occur to both parties. 32. Admittedly, the land of Sy.No. 104/C had continued to remain in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff/petitioner, who has asserted in the application that the land of said Sy.No. 104/C was later on allotted to his children. Significantly, the measurement of the said land of Sy.No. 104/C is 1 acre 8 guntas, i.e., 48 guntas. In the plaint, the plaintiff stated that 28 guntas of land of Sy. No. 104/C had gone in road. As noticed, Sy.No. 104/C had not gone in road but the land of the road had been marked as Sy.No. 104/D. Significantly, the plaintiff has specifically stated in his application that he had filed the suit in relation to land of Sy.No. 104/D admeasuring 21 guntas. 33. Viewed in the light of the aforesaid facts, if the approach of the Trial Court is maintained, the plaintiff would be entitled to compensation in relation to 28 guntas of land of Sy.No. 104/C whereas, the correction as prayed for would be to the effect that the plaintiff would be entitled to compensation only to an extent of 21 guntas of land in Sy. No. 104/D, which has, in fact, gone in road. Therefore, correcting Sy.No. from 104/C to 104/D and correcting the measurment from 28 guntas to 21 guntas cannot, in any manner, operate against the interest of the defendants/ respondents. On the contrary, after such correction, the defendants would be required to make payment of compensation for 21 guntas of land in place of 28 guntas; of course, in relation to the correct Sy.No. 104/D in place of Sy.No. 104/C. The opposition on behalf of the respondents, therefore, turns out to be baseless and rather unnecessary. 34. So far the question of delay is concerned, it remains trite that such correction of clerical mistake is not put in the bounds of limitation. The reason is obvious that the true effect of a decree cannot be lost or nullified or wiped out only with passage of time. Such errors could be, rather ought to be, corrected at any stage of the proceedings and cannot be declined merely for passage of time. 35. The reason is obvious that the true effect of a decree cannot be lost or nullified or wiped out only with passage of time. Such errors could be, rather ought to be, corrected at any stage of the proceedings and cannot be declined merely for passage of time. 35. For what has been discussed hereinabove, this Court is clearly of the view that the judgment and decree dated 09.07.1999 in O.S. No. 190 of 1997 deserve to be corrected in the manner that the findings on issue Nos.1 and 2 shall be read to the effect that the plaintiff has proved his ownership of land of Sy. No. 104/D measuring 21 guntas, which had been acquired for laying of a road but without payment of compensation. In the decree, the expression ‘in respect of land Sy. No. 104/C to the extent of 0-28 guntas’ shall be read as ‘in respect of land Sy. No. 104/D to the extent of 0-21 guntas’. 36. Therefore, this petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 is set aside; and the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner is allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. 37. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.