JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. Notices for final disposal were issued on 05.07.2017, but despite service nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present writ petition arises out of the order dated 01.05.2017, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No. 5, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’). 3. As nobody is there to contest the petition or assist the Court on behalf of the respondents, it was thought appropriate to summon the original record from the Trial Court. Upon perusal of the record the following facts emerge:— 3.1. The plaintiff - Rameshwar Lal, father of the present petitioner filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent on 27.04.1989. 3.2. On 15.05.1999, an application under Order XXII Rule 4 came to be filed by the plaintiff to bring legal representative of the defendant - Mohan Singh on record, who had passed away on 25.02.1999. 3.3. The said application remained pending for want of service upon the proposed legal representatives of defendant for considerable time. 3.4. Though this Court could not lay hands to the order sheet containing formal order of taking the legal representatives of the defendant on record, but record of proceedings of 15.12.2001 reveals that the Trial Court has noted that legal representatives of the defendant have been taken on record. It is to be noted that amended cause-title filed on 27.11.2001 (with LRs of defendant) is there on record. 3.5. During the pendency of the suit, said original plaintiff - Rameshwar Lal S/o Mukund Lal too had expired on 09.12.2002, hence an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be filed by the legal representative of the plaintiff - the present petitioner on 06.01.2003. 3.6. On 24.02.2003, the defendants prayed for and were granted time to file reply to the said application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code and the case was posted to 08.04.2003. 3.7. On 08.04.2003 also, the defendants prayed for time and the matter was adjourned to 20.05.2003’for reply/arguments. 3.8. Due to oversight, the said application could neither be pursued by the plaintiff/plaintiffs counsel nor could it be taken up by the Trial Court. 3.9. 3.7. On 08.04.2003 also, the defendants prayed for time and the matter was adjourned to 20.05.2003’for reply/arguments. 3.8. Due to oversight, the said application could neither be pursued by the plaintiff/plaintiffs counsel nor could it be taken up by the Trial Court. 3.9. Be that as it may, the suit came to be decreed by the Trial Court on 17.01.2006 and the judgment as well as decree was prepared in the name of Rameshwar Lal S/o Mukund Lal as decree-holder, though he had expired. 3.10. After passing of the decree, the petitioner found that the judgment and decree has been drawn in the name of his father Rameshwar Lal S/o Mukund Lal, who had expired on 09.12.2002, of course prior to passing of the judgment and decree. The petitioner on enquiry realised that his application for substitution as legal representative remained undecided and he could not be impleaded as plaintiff. 3.11. That being the position, the petitioner moved an application dated 29.01.2007 under Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought correction in the decree incorporating his name as the plaintiff. He indicated the factum of the application dated 06.01.2003, which he had filed under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code, qua which no objection was ever raised by the defendants. 3.12. The petitioner's said application has however been rejected by the Trial court, vide its order dated 01.05.2017, interalia observing that after passing of the judgment and decree, it has become functus Officio. 4. Mr. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner impugning the order dated 1.5.2017 and narrating the facts in detail, contended that learned Court below has committed an error of law in rejecting the petitioner's application u/Sec. 151 and 152 of the Code, particularly in the extant factual backdrop. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. Indisputably, the original plaintiff - Rameshwar Lal had expired on 09.12.2002, and soon thereafter (on 06.01.2003), an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed by his legal representative - the petitioner. As a matter of fact, in absence of any reply/objection, the petitioner ought to have been brought on record, but the application could not be decided and hence, petitioner - the legal representative of the plaintiff Rameshwar Lal could not be formally brought on record. As a matter of fact, in absence of any reply/objection, the petitioner ought to have been brought on record, but the application could not be decided and hence, petitioner - the legal representative of the plaintiff Rameshwar Lal could not be formally brought on record. As a result, the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2006 came to be passed in name of Rameshwar Lal S/o Mukund Lal as the plaintiff. 7. It is to be noticed that petitioner has moved the subject application under Section 151 and 152 of the Code on 29.01.2007, without inordinate delay. 8. In considered opinion of this Court, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a repository of inherent power, while Section 152 of the Code vests the Civil Court with a power to rectify clerical or arithmetical errors crept in the judgment and decree. 9. These provisions are meant to do substantial justice. It is also settled that the procedural hurdles or technicalities should not come in the way of substantial justice. Hence the Courts should outstretch their hands to reach justice, instead of feeling them tied. 10. In view of the uncontroverted and undisputed facts available on record, 1 am of the view that the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting petitioner's application for rectification of judgment and decree, on technical count of it having become functus officio. 11. Indisputably there occurred an inadvertent error in the proceedings inasmuch as petitioner's application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code remained undecided. Section 153 of the Code empowers a Court to amend any defect or error in the proceedings, for the purpose of determining the real question or issues involved in the proceedings. Section 153-A of the Code permits the amendment even after the decree has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. I see no reason to ratify the action of the Court below. 12. It is also pertinent that petitioner's application dated 06.01.2003, filed under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure remained unattended or undecided, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed or penalised. 13. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court allows the petitioner's application dated 06.01.2003 filed under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code, as neither the defendants nor anyone else had opposed petitioner's substitution. 13. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court allows the petitioner's application dated 06.01.2003 filed under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code, as neither the defendants nor anyone else had opposed petitioner's substitution. It shall be deemed allowed prior to passing of the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2006. 14. The impugned order dated 01.05.2017, passed by the Trial Court is quashed and set aside. The Trial Court is directed to rectify the judgment and decree treating the application dated 06.01.2003 under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code to have been allowed. 15. A rectified judgment be passed and amended decree dated 17.01.2006 incorporating name of the petitioner be prepared, within a period of six weeks from placing of the certified copy of this order.