JUDGMENT : Both these writ petitions are arising out of an order dated 22.04.2016, passed in two different execution cases i.e. Execution Case No. 52 and 53 of 2006, but pertaining to the similar issues and similar nature of order, passed therein, have been challenged and, as such, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The order dated 22.04.2016 is under challenge by which petition filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction of clerical/arithmetical mistake in the decree prepared by the court of the First Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Tribunal Judge under Coal Bearing Areas, (A&D Act, 1952), Civil Court, Ranchi, Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder the decree said to have by way of clerical/arithmetical mistake has been committed to the effect that in the present Award, interest has been calculated on the quantum of amount of compensation in lieu of land, solatium @ 30 per cent and 9 per cent and 15 per cent, which meant that the Award granted interest on interest and also meaning thereby, the interest has been granted by computing interest upon interest i.e. on the principle of compoundable interest and therefore, the same being error arithmetical in nature has been sought to be corrected by filing a petition under Section 152 of the C.P.C. but the same has been rejected vide impugned order, therefore, the instant writ petitions. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, are that the respondents have made an application for reference, not being satisfied with the quantum of amount of compensation by invoking the provision, as conferred under Section 80 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being registered as Reference Case No. 33 of 1987 and 21 of 1987, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23rd June, 2004 with a direction upon the petitioner/judgment debtor to pay compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per acres, besides 30 per cent additional solatium on the valuation of the land and interest @ 9 per cent per annum for the financial year and 15 per cent per annum for the subsequent years. Being aggrieved, since the error has been committed in calculating the interest on the subsequent period up to 23.06.2004 and thereafter, deducted the amount of compensation paid by the petitioner is not proper and apart from that, the Tribunal has calculated interest twice, first on row 3 and 4 and again on row 6 and in place of Rs.2,77,950.50/- it has been calculated at Rs.4,20,657.56 (in Ref. Case No. 21 of 87 and in (Ref Case No. 33 of 87) in place of Rs.4,80,709.29/-, it has been calculated at Rs.7,59,480.11/-, which prompted the petitioner to file a petition by invoking the jurisdiction, as provided under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the court below has rejected the said petitions vide order dated 22.04.2016 against which the present writ petitions have been filed. 3. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the issue that the error has been committed in calculating the interest, which is nothing but the interest has been calculated on interest by adding it in the principle amount without deducting the principle amount, paid by the competent authority before a reference and, as such, the trial court ought to have allowed the petition under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but in one line, the said petition has been rejected, therefore, the orders impugned are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and appreciated the findings recorded in his argument. 5. This Court deems it fit and proper that before proceeding to by looking into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, to refer to the provision of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads hereunder as :- “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” Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors in the judgments/decrees or orders or errors, arising therein, from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistake by the court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing judicial orders after the judgment/decree or order. The issue with respect to the jurisdiction of the Court in amending the judgment/decrees or orders clerical or arithmetical mistakes crept therein, fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dwarka Das Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 500 , wherein, at paragraph 6, it has been held as follows:- “6. Section 152 CPC provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders of 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 court or the tribunal becomes functus officio and thus being not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed. 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 for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file appeal or review application. 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 the CPC 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. In the instant case, the trial court had specifically held the respondent-State liable to pay future interest only despite the prayer of the appellant for grant of interest with effect from the date of alleged breach which impliedly meant that the Court had rejected the claim of the appellant insofar as pendente lite interest was concerned. In the instant case, the trial court had specifically held the respondent-State liable to pay future interest only despite the prayer of the appellant for grant of interest with effect from the date of alleged breach which impliedly meant that the Court had rejected the claim of the appellant insofar as pendente lite interest was concerned. The omission in not granting the pendente lite interest could not be held to be accidental omission or mistake as was wrongly done by the trial court vide order dated 30-11-1973. The High Court was, therefore, justified in setting aside the aforesaid order by accepting the revision petition filed by the State.” In the case of State of Punjab-Vs.-Darshan Singh reported in (2004) 1 SCC 328 , wherein, the judgment rendered in the case of Dwarika Das Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Supra) has been followed and it would be evident from paragraph 12 thereof, which reads hereunder as :- “12. 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 passing of 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 and, 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 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 an 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 the 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 M.P. and Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho” Now, the point to be decided by this Court, is as to whether the amendment sought to be made in the instant case, which relates to the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistake in the judgment and decrees arising therein, from any accidental scene or omission. Before answering this issue, it would also be relevant to answer the issue raised by the petitioner that the trial court has rejected the petition filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure in one line without assigning any reason and therefore, this Court deem it fit and proper to first answer the issue with respect to assigning the reason by the trial court. It is not in dispute that either the administrative or quasi-judicial authority or the court of law, if supposed to pass an order with specific assigning the reason therein. Admittedly, herein, the reason has not been assigned by the trial court for rejecting the petition filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not in dispute that either the administrative or quasi-judicial authority or the court of law, if supposed to pass an order with specific assigning the reason therein. Admittedly, herein, the reason has not been assigned by the trial court for rejecting the petition filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court now will proceed to examine that whether in the facts and circumstances involved in this case, even if no reason has been assigned by the trial court, while dealing with the petition under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, can it be remitted before the trial court and can it not be corrected by this Court, sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since a reference case is of the year 1987 and the execution case is of the year 2006 and, as such, about 32 years have already crossed from the date of initiation of proceeding of the reference case, therefore, this Court after taking into consideration the jurisdiction of the Court, sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which also is having with the corrective jurisdiction. As has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions, reference of which needs to be made hereunder as:- (i) in the case of Dy. Director, Land Acquisition Vs. Malla Atchinaidu and others reported in (2006) 12 SCC 87 ; “46. In K. Rajamouli v. A.V.K.N. Swamy at SCC p. 41, para 6, placitum g it is held: “6. Section 152 provides that a clerical or arithmetical mistake…. The question, therefore, arises is whether omission of pendente lite interest to the decree by the trial court was an accidental or clerical error. In Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. it was held that the omission in not granting pendente lite interest could not be held to be an accidental omission or mistake and therefore, neither the trial court nor the appellate court has the power to award pendente lite interest under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 47. The Privy Council in Piyaratana Unnanse v. Wahareke Sonuttara Unnanse dealing with Section 189 of the Ceylon Code corresponding to Section 152 CPC has laid down similar principle. The Privy Council in Piyaratana Unnanse v. Wahareke Sonuttara Unnanse dealing with Section 189 of the Ceylon Code corresponding to Section 152 CPC has laid down similar principle. The contention of the party in the appeal before the Privy Council was that while judgment on which the decree was based had conceded the right to an additional area of land edged green in the plan called “Spencer’s plan”, the decree does not follow suit and hence it has to be corrected by resort to Section 189 of the Ceylon Code corresponding to Section 152 CPC. The Privy Council negatived the plea and held at CWN p. 572 left hand side column as: “The highest the case can be put on behalf of the appellants is that there are passages in the judgment which suggest that if the Judge had been minded to decide the question, he would have decided it in favour of the appellants. The Judge may have had good reasons for not deciding the question. He may have thought it inappropriate to decide on the title to a piece of open land when he was dealing only with issues relating to the cost of improvements in buildings, or he may have thought that any such decision might be embarrassing to parties not before the Court who had interests in the land.” 48. The general rule is clear that once an order is passed and entered or otherwise perfected in accordance with the practice of the court, the court which passed the order is functus officio and cannot set aside or alter the order however wrong it may appear to be. That can only be done on appeal. Section 189 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ceylon, which embodies the provisions of Order 28 Rule 11 of the English Rules of the Supreme Court to ensure that its order carries into effect the decision at which it arrived, provides an exception to the general rule, but it is an exception within a narrow compass. The section does not take away any right of appeal which the parties may possess, it merely provides a simple and expeditious means of rectifying an obvious error. The section does not take away any right of appeal which the parties may possess, it merely provides a simple and expeditious means of rectifying an obvious error. In the present case there was no clerical error or accidental omission in the decree and the case of the appellants is based on an alleged variance between the judgment of the court and the decree based upon it. In such a case the variation should appear on a perusal of the judgment and decree. No such variation is apparent in the present case.” (ii) in the case of Century Textiles Industries Limited Vs. Deepak Jain and Another reported in (2009) 5 SCC 634 and “22. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the High Court that the only course available to the decree-holder was to seek amendment of the decree under Section 152 CPC, as was canvassed before us by learned counsel for the respondents. A bare reading of Section 152 CPC makes it clear that the power of the court under the said provision is limited to rectification of clerical and arithmetical errors arising from any accidental slip or omission. There cannot be reconsideration of the merits of the matter and the sole object of the provision is based on the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit i.e. an act of court shall prejudice no man. In our judgment, the issue requiring adjudication by the executing court did not call for and was clearly beyond the scope of Section 152 CPC.” (iii) in the case of SriHari (Dead) through Legal Representative Ch. Niveditha Reddy-Vs.-Syed Maqdoom Shah and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 607 . “13. From the language of Section 152 of the Code, as quoted above, and also from the interpretation of the section given in State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh, the section is meant for correcting the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. It is true that 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 under the guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered. It is true that 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 under the guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered. The corrections contemplated under the section are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152. In Bijay Kumar Saraogi4 also it has been reiterated that Section 152 of the Code can be invoked for the limited purpose of correcting clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or accidental omissions.” This Court further before proceeding to look into the legality and propriety of the order deem it fit and proper to deal with the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that the provision of Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be dealt with in two fields i.e., under the constitutional mandate as has been incorporated in the Indian Constitution wherein Article 227 confers power upon the High Court to act with power of supervision and superintendence upon all the courts or tribunals situated within the territorial jurisdiction of such High Court that is the constitutional mandate. Apart from that, after the amendment having been brought in the Code of Civil Procedure, the revisional power as provided under Section 115 of the C.P.C. has been curtailed and has been conferred upon Article 227 of the Constitution of India to deal with, by looking into the legality and propriety of the order if the order is interlocutory in nature. The Articles 226 & 227 are parts of the Constitution of India which define the power of High Courts. Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue to any person or authority including the Government (in appropriate cases), directions, orders or writs including writ in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrnto and certiorari, or any of them. The High Court is conferred with this power of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. The High Court is conferred with this power of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. Article 227 determines that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction (except a court or forum of law related to armed forces). The High Court, can under Article 227: (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts; (d) settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the scope, power and difference between Articles 226 & 227, in the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chader Rai & Ors., reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 after putting reliance upon the other Constitution Bench's judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, one of which was, Umaji Keshao Meshram & Ors. vs. Radhikabai W/o Anandrao Banapurkar & Anr., reported in 1986 Supp SC 401 which laid down the power, scope and difference between Articles 226 & 227. This Court is only considering the scope of Article 227 since the matter pertains with respect to the power conferred upon the High Court under the aforesaid Article. The Article 227 substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915 except that the power of superintendence has been extended by this Article to Tribunals as well. The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. In the case of Surya Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to lay down the difference between Articles 226 & 227 by holding therein that the writ of certiorari is an exercise of its original jurisdiction by the High Court (Article 226), exercise of supervisory jurisdiction (Article 227) is not an original jurisdiction and in this regard, it is akin to appellate revisional or corrective jurisdiction. The issue decided in the case of Surya Devi (supra) has been referred to the larger Bench in the case of Radhe Shyam & Anr. vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors., reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 wherein the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that in the judicial proceeding the provision of Article 227 will only be invoked. vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors., reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 wherein the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that in the judicial proceeding the provision of Article 227 will only be invoked. Further in the said judgment it has been held that the power of Article 227 wherein the High Court can exercise as a corrective writ jurisdiction forum, meaning thereby, if the High Court sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India comes to the conclusion that any error has been committed by the trial Court, the views can be substituted by the High Court sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so that the order which has been passed and found to suffer from any illegality, the same can be substituted by passing a fresh order but that power is not available to the High Court under Article 226 since if the High Court comes to the conclusion that there is any error in the order, the same can be quashed by issuing any type of writ and it would be remitted before the authority for taking a fresh decision, meaning thereby, the views cannot be substituted by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it is for the reason that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is see as to whether the authorities are following the rules or statutory power conferred upon them and if they are flouting it, the High Court will quash the order and remit it before the authority for passing a fresh order in accordance with law.” It is, therefore, evident that if the order passed by the trial court is not with any reason, it could be corrected by the High Court, sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India under its corrective writ jurisdiction and, therefore, this Court after taking into consideration the fact that the reference has been initiated way back 32 years ago and, as such, instead of remitting the matter before the authority for passing a fresh order, has decided to go into the merit of the issues, as to whether by answering the issue framed with respect to the applicability of Section 152 of the C.P.C., as the question being framed for its answer hereinabove. This Court in order to examine the matter on the basis of the factual aspect involved in this case, as to whether the issue, which has been raised by the petitioner is subject to the provision of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The admitted fact in this case is that an Award has been passed in a Reference Case No. 21 of 1987, whereby petitioners were directed to pay compensation @ 15 per cent. The admitted case is that a land has been acquired under the Coal Bearing Act, 1957 by the Central Coalfields Limited for the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi and the matter has been subjected to land acquisition proceedings, upon which certain amount has been paid by way of compensation by the Land Acquisition proceedings, the said amount has been accepted by the petitioners. Thereafter, made applications for its reference as per the provision of Section 18 to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in pursuance thereto, a reference case was initiated being Reference Case Nos. 21/87 and 33/87. The Reference case was answered by the First A.J.C.- cum-Tribunal Judge, Ranchi, which reads hereunder as:- “Under such circumstances giving my anxious consideration over the entire facts, evidence and circumstances of the case I hold that the claimants are entitled to get compensation of the land in question at the rate of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) per acre besides 30 % additional compensation on the valuation of the land and interest at rate rate of Rs.9 % per annum for the first year and 15 % for the subsequent year till the payment, after deducting the compensation amount which the claimants have already received.” In pursuance to the said order, passed in the said Reference case, the Award of the Union of India/CCL/Ranchi was modified on contest, as per the discretion contained therein, which reads hereunder as:- “DESCRIPTION OF LAND Village: - Magardaha, P.S. Tandwa, Distt. Chatra. Awardees Name Khata No. Plot No. Areas 1.Smt. Kapurni Khatun 6,8,9 115,188,171 1.29 acres 1. Compensation for the land of 1.29 acres @ Rs.50,000/= Per acres Rs.64,500.00 2.Addl. Chatra. Awardees Name Khata No. Plot No. Areas 1.Smt. Kapurni Khatun 6,8,9 115,188,171 1.29 acres 1. Compensation for the land of 1.29 acres @ Rs.50,000/= Per acres Rs.64,500.00 2.Addl. Compensation @ 30 % Rs.19,350.00 Total Rs.83,850.00 3.Interest at the rate of 9 % for First year on (27.2.82 to 27.2.83) 7,546.50 4.Interest at the rate of 15 % from (28.2.83 to 5.6.86) (3 years 3 Months 7 days) 49.3 % Rs.41,111.65 Total Rs.1,32,508.15 5.Amount Paid by CCL on 5.6.86 Rs.18.838.42 Total Rs.1,13,669.73 6.Interest at the rate of 15 % p.a. from 6.6.86 to 23.6.2004 (18 Years & 17 days) 270.070% Rs.3,06,987.83 G. Total Rs.4,20,657.56 (Rs. Four lakhs twenty thousand six hundred fifty & Paises fifty six) The Claimants shall get compensation money of Rs.4,20,657. He/They shall also get future interest at the 15 % P.a. till the date of realization” “DESCRIPTION OF LAND Village: - Magardaha, P.S. Tandwa, Distt. Chatra. Awardee’s Name Khata No. Plot No. Areas Ahmad Mia S/o Hanif Mian And Ahmad Mia S/o Habib Mian 9,19 97,62,100 & 103 2.46 acres 1. Compensation for the land of 2.46 acres @ 50,000/- per acres Rs.1,23,000.00 2.Solitium @ 30 % Rs.36,900.00 Total Rs.1,59,900.00 3.Interest at the rate of 9 % for one year (27.2.82 to 27.2.83) Rs.14,391.00 4.Interest at the rate of 15 % of from 28.2.83 to 5.6.86) (3 years 3 Months & 7 days) 49.03 % Rs.78,398.97. Total Rs.2,52,689.97 5.Amount Paid by CCL on 5.6.86 (-) Rs.47.463.90 Total Rs.2,05,226.07 6.Interest at the rate of 15 % p.a. from 6.6.86 to 23.6.2004 (18 Years 17 days) 270.070% Rs.5,54,254.04 Grand Total Rs.7,59,480.11 (Rs. Seven lakhs fifty nine thousand four hundred eighty & Paises Eleven only) The Claimants shall get compensation money of Rs.7,59,480=11. Total Rs.2,52,689.97 5.Amount Paid by CCL on 5.6.86 (-) Rs.47.463.90 Total Rs.2,05,226.07 6.Interest at the rate of 15 % p.a. from 6.6.86 to 23.6.2004 (18 Years 17 days) 270.070% Rs.5,54,254.04 Grand Total Rs.7,59,480.11 (Rs. Seven lakhs fifty nine thousand four hundred eighty & Paises Eleven only) The Claimants shall get compensation money of Rs.7,59,480=11. He/They shall also get future interest at the 15 % P.a. till the date of realization.” The petitioner, thereafter has made an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for seeking, therein, the relief to the effect that an Award of Rs.4,20,657/- (Reference Case No. 21/87) and Rs.7,59,480.11 (Reference Case No. 33/87) for 1.29 acres and 2.46 acres of land by which the claimants have been granted 15 per cent interest till the date of realization of the above sum, but according to the petitioner, as per the provision of interest to be paid i.e. only on the compensation amount, which comprises the cost of the land and solatium @ 30 per cent in the present Award, interest has been calculated on compensation of land with solatium @ 30 per cent interest and 9 per cent and 15 per cent, which meant that the Award granted interest on interest also, meaning, thereby compound interest in this case. Therefore, the Award granting compound interest, the same being arithmetical error, needs correction in view of the provision of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is evident from the provision as contained under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for correction of clerical/arithmetical mistake in judgements/decrees/orders or errors arising therein, from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction or mistakes by the court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment/decree or/order, since it is the settled position of law that after passing of the judgment/decree or order occurred or the Tribunal becomes functus officio and thus, being not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed. 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 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 for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file appeal or review application. This Court has assessed the grounds agitated by the petitioner in a petition filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherefrom it is evident that the petitioner is raising the question that the compensation/components comprises of cost of land and solatium @ 30 per cent, but in the present Award, the interest has been calculated on solatium @ 30 per cent, interest @ 9 per cent and 15 per cent, which meant that the Award granted interest on interest, also meaning, thereby compound interest in this case. The aforesaid ground is being referred hereunder as:- “4. That the compensation componants comprises, cost of the land & solatium @ 30 % but in the present Award interest has calculated on comp. of Land solatium @ 30 % interest (9 % and 15 % which menat that the Award granted interest on interest also meaning there by compound interest in this case.” 6. Therefore, the said assertion, as referred, hereinabove, under paragraph 4 to the Exc. Case No. 53/2006 filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to the considered view of this Court cannot be said to clerical or arithmetical mistakes, rather, it is the case of the petitioner that the Award has wrongly been prepared by calculating the interest over interest and therefore, the same being, goes to the merit of the issues, hence is beyond the scope of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, rather, the petitioner ought to have agitated this issue by filing review or appeal before the appropriate Forum, therefore, this Court after taking into consideration the provision of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the interpretation of Section 152, as has been made in the case of Dwarka Das Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (Supra) and also in the case of State of Punjab Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (Supra) and also in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Darshan Singh (Supra), is of the view that the nature of correction, as has been sought for by the petitioner, is not in such a nature, warranting correction under the provision of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the petition filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 22.04.2016, is corrected under Article 227 of the Constitution of India under its corrective jurisdiction by coming to the conclusive finding that for the reasons stated, hereinabove, the petition filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is having no merit and, accordingly, the said petitions are rejected and in consequence thereof, the writ petitions are also dismissed.