ORDER : 1. The petitioners are the landlords and the respondents are the tenants. 2. In the year 1978, proceedings were initiated to evict the original respondent–Gurupadayya Hiremath (hereinafter referred to as “tenant”) in HRC No.12/1978. The said petition was allowed. Against the said order, a revision was filed in HRC Rev No.2/1981, which was allowed and against the said order a revision was filed before this Court. This revision was however dismissed 3. The petitioner filed HRC 3/1996 seeking for eviction but the same was dismissed on the ground that the suit premises was a non-residential premises and the rent being more than Rs.500/, the petition under the provisions of the then Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was not maintainable. 4. The petitioner thereafter issued a quit notice calling upon the tenant to vacate. In this quit notice, it was sated that the agreed rent was Rs.200/p.a. and that the property was measuring 10 ft. by 5 ft. It had been stated in the notice that in respect this premises, proceedings had been initiated earlier in HRC No.12/1978 and in HRC No.3/1996, which were both ultimately dismissed on technical grounds. It was stated that the premises was needed by the petitioner constructing a new structure. 5. The ultimate demand in the notice was as follows: “10 You are hereby called upon to handover the possession of the suit premises bearing CTS No.1703, situated at Jamkhandi, failing in which my client shall take civil as well as criminal action against you.” 6. As demand made in the quit notice was not complied with, a suit for ejectment in O.S.NO.114/2003 was filed. In the said suit, it was stated in paragraph No.4 that the plaintiff, his mother Smt. Krishnabai and her four sisters were occupying the premises adjacent to the suit schedule property bearing CTS No.1704 and CTS No.1702B and that the southern portion bearing CTS No.1702B and eastern portion bearing CTS No.1704 were both residential premises and that a part of CTS No.1704 to the northern side was utilized by the plaintiff and his family members. 7. It was also stated that the plaintiff required the suit premises in question as he was intending to demolish the building namely CTS No.1703, 1702B and 1704 with an intention to reconstruct the building. An averment was also made regarding the earlier proceedings in HRC Nos.12/1978 and 3/1996. 8. 7. It was also stated that the plaintiff required the suit premises in question as he was intending to demolish the building namely CTS No.1703, 1702B and 1704 with an intention to reconstruct the building. An averment was also made regarding the earlier proceedings in HRC Nos.12/1978 and 3/1996. 8. The plaintiff, however, in description of the suit properties, described the properties as CTS No.1702B and CTS No.1704, situated at Jamkhandi. The plaint was also accompanied by a hand sketch map, in which, the location of CTS No.1703 was marked by means of striped lines and the sketch also indicated the location of CTS Nos.1702/A, 1702B and 1704. 9. This suit was stoutly contested by the tenant. The tenant admitted that he was inducted into the property by the plaintiff’s father on an annual rent of Rs.200/and he also admitted that the plaintiff had succeeded to the properties along with Smt.Kamala and Smt. Shakuntala. 10. The Tenant also admitted that the earlier proceeding for eviction in HRC Nos.12/1978 and 3/1996, but however it was stated that since they were dismissed, the suit was not maintainable and it was barred by the principles of resjudicata. A plea that the tenant had acquired title by adverse possession was also raised. 11. It may be pertinent to state here that during the cross-examination in O.S.No.114/2013, the following suggestions were made by the tenant to the landlord/plaintiff: 12. After the trial, the said suit i.e., O.S.No.114/2003 was dismissed. An appeal was preferred in R.A.No.6/2000. The Appellate Court set aside the dismissal and proceeded to decree the suit by its judgment dated 23.01.2009. This decree of eviction granted by the appellate Court was confirmed in RSA No.5214/2009. Thus, the order of eviction passed against the tenant was confirmed by this Court. 13. Thereafter an application was filed seeking for amendment of the judgment and decree and other documents. By the said application, the plaintiff sought to add CTS No.1703 by replacing the wrong CTS No.1702B and also for insertion of the direction arrow in the hand sketch map and for correction in the schedule of the property number in the judgment and decree by adding 1703 and replacing the wrong CTS No CTS 1702B. 14. The said application was contested by the tenant and the Trial Court after hearing proceeded to dismiss the application. 14. The said application was contested by the tenant and the Trial Court after hearing proceeded to dismiss the application. For dismissing the application, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not sure as to what was the correct property for which he was agitating and since the judgment and decree were based on the basis of the pleadings, it could not be said that it was an arithmetical or clerical mistake., 15. It is against this order refusing to amend the judgment and decree, the present writ petition is filed. 16. The question that would arise for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the parties to the lis could contend that the error in the description of the property in the plaint and as a consequence in the decree could be corrected after the decree had been passed. 17. As could be seen from the above narration of facts, it is not in dispute that the tenant herein was inducted by the father of the petitioners and the eviction proceedings were initiated under the then prevailing KRC Act, 1961 in HRC No.12/1978. It is also not in dispute that after the said proceedings concluded, a fresh eviction proceedings in HRC No.3/1996 under the provisions of the then KRC Act, 1961 was filed and this was also dismissed in view of the decision to the effect that the provisions of the KRC Act would not be applicable to non-residential premises. 18. It is clear from the above that litigation had ensued for more than 24 years between the petitioners and the respondent for eviction of the respondent. It is obvious that in a litigation that spanned 24 years in respect of eviction, the parties to the lis were acutely conscious of the fact that the litigation was in respect of a property which was in possession of the tenant. More importantly, the tenant was definitely conscious of the fact that an attempt was being made to evict him from the tenanted premises through the process of the Court. 19. It is to be noticed here that on the conclusion of the proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, proceedings for ejectment were initiated under the Transfer of Property Act. More importantly, the tenant was definitely conscious of the fact that an attempt was being made to evict him from the tenanted premises through the process of the Court. 19. It is to be noticed here that on the conclusion of the proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, proceedings for ejectment were initiated under the Transfer of Property Act. As required under the T.P. Act, a quit notice was issued and in this quit notice it was clearly mentioned that the quit notice was being issued in respect of CTS No.1703. 20. Pursuant to the said quit notice, a suit was filed on the basis of the quit notice and the basic premise of the suit was that it was for ejecting the tenant and was based on the foundation of the quit notice. These essential facts cannot at all be in dispute. 21. In fact the tenant not only admitted the earlier proceedings but also the issuance of quit notice. Though the defendant took up various pleas in his written statement, he basically admitted the tenancy, the annual rent and also the earlier proceedings. He also admitted that he was doing business in the shop premises. 22. It is important to notice that nowhere in the written statement did the defendant put forth a plea that the suit for ejectment was in respect of a premises which was not in his possession. 23. To put it differently, the tenant did not dispute the fact that the plaintiff was seeking for possession of the shop premises which was in his possession. 24. If the tenant had stated that the premises in respect of which possession was being sought for was a premises which was not in his possession, the suit would not have been proceeded at all. In fact, if it was the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff was seeking for possession of CTS No 1704 and 1702B, he would have simply stated that the plaintiff was seeking for possession of the premises which were already in the possession of the plaintiff. Since such a plea was not raised either directly or indirectly, it will have to be held that the defendant was aware of the fact that ejectment ought for was in respect of his possession over premises CTS No 1703/B 25. Since such a plea was not raised either directly or indirectly, it will have to be held that the defendant was aware of the fact that ejectment ought for was in respect of his possession over premises CTS No 1703/B 25. However, since the suit was decreed as prayed for in the plaint, the description of the suit schedule properties stated in the plaint the decree came to be drawn up as a decree in relation to CTS Nos.1702B and 1704. Since the property bearing CTS No.1703 was not found in the plaint, the same was also not reflected in the decree. 26. This statement in the decree that it pertained to CTS No 1702B and 1704, according to the tenant, invalidated the decree completely and the decree could not be used to evict him though he had contested the suit right up to the High Court and had lost. In other words, a technical plea was sought to be raised that as the decree did not contain CTS No.1703, the defendant could not be evicted. 27. As stated above, at the very beginning, in the quit notice itself, a clear statement was made that the defendant was in possession of CTS No.1703 and he was being asked to quit and deliver the possession of this premises. In fact, the defendant himself suggested to the plaintiff, during trial, that the suit premises was bearing CTS No.1703. These two factors by themselves are adequate to come to the conclusion that the decree that was passed was essentially in respect of CTS No.1703 and not in respect of CTS Nos.1702B and 1704. 28. Another reason as to why this is the only possible conclusion is that the plaintiff had also enclosed a hand sketch along with the plaint and in this hand sketch, he had clearly marked out CTS No.1703 in striped lines and also marked out the adjoining CTS No 1702/A, 1702B and 1704 as abutting CTS No 1703/B, thereby indicating, that was the subject matter of the dispute was CTS No 1703/B. 29. It is to be stated here that O 7 R 3 of the CPC requires that the plaint should contain a description of the property which would be sufficient to identify it and in case the property could be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, such boundaries or numbers are required to be specified. The intent behind this rule is that whenever a suit was in respect of an immovable property, the plaint should contain which would facilitate the identification of the property. This would not lead to the conclusion that the details of the property mentioned in a schedule would alone govern the description of the property. The plaint as a whole would have to be read to identify the property in respect of which the suit had been filed. 30. The plaint averments in paragraph No.2 read as follows: “After the death of plaintiff’s father in the year 1947, the plaintiff, his mother Smt.Krishnabai and his four sisters were occupying the premises adjustant to the suit schedule property bearing CTS No.1704 and CTS No.1702-B. The Southern portion bearing CTS No.1702-B and eastern house CTS No.1704 were residential premises and part of CTS No.1704 to the Northern was utilized by the plaintiff and his family members for Sugandhi Shoop” 31. These averments by themselves clearly indicate that the property which was the subject matter of the suit was CTS No 1703. This is because, the plaintiff had described the properties abutting the suit property and had stated that he, his mother and four sisters were staying in the properties adjacent to the suit property bearing no CTS Nos.1704 and 1702B. This assertion of the plaintiff in paragaph 2 of the plaintiff was not disputed by the defendant at all. This would therefore indicate that the defendant was also aware of the fact that the entire eviction proceedings was in relation to CTS No.1703. 32. In view of these indisputable facts, it cannot be held that the mere omission to mention CTS No.1703 in the schedule to the plaint would invalidate the entire decree. If an omission in the schedule can be used to invalidate a decree drawn up after a long drawn out litigation spanning more than 43 years, as of today, it would be a real travesty of justice. 33. If an omission in the schedule can be used to invalidate a decree drawn up after a long drawn out litigation spanning more than 43 years, as of today, it would be a real travesty of justice. 33. It is to be borne in mind that when the parties go to trial, they are fully conscious of the subject matter of the dispute and in the present case, the defendant was definitely conscious of the fact that the CTS No.1703, which was in possession, was undoubtedly the subject matter of the eviction proceedings. 34. In my view, having regard to these set of facts, the Trial Court ought to have permitted the amendment to the judgment and decree and could not have come to the conclusion that only arithmetical or technical errors in a decree can be corrected. 35. The power to ensure that justice be done is inherent in every court, whether they are statutorily embodies or not. It is precisely for this reason that Section 151 of CPC has been engrafted in the CPC. S. 151 of the Code saves the power that is inherent in the every Court to do justice by stating that nothing in the Code would deem to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to pass such orders as are necessary in the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 36. Merely because, there is no express provision in the Code which would permit of amendment of the judgment and decree which reflected an obvious mistake in the schedule to the plaint, that would not in way deemed to limit the power of the Court nor would it take away the power of the Court to cause the correction of the obvious mistake in relation to the property which was the subject matter of the suit in the judgment and decree. This is exactly why Section 151 of CPC uses the expression shall be deemed to the limit the inherent power of the Court to make such order as would be necessary to meet the ends of justice or prevent the abuse of process of Court. 37. This is exactly why Section 151 of CPC uses the expression shall be deemed to the limit the inherent power of the Court to make such order as would be necessary to meet the ends of justice or prevent the abuse of process of Court. 37. If it is to be held that the Courts are helpless to correct an obvious error that would only mean that a litigant would basically abuse the process of the Court and that would result in a complete miscarriage of justice. 38. I am therefore of the view that the decision of the trial Court in refusing to amend the judgment and decree is incorrect and the same requires to be set aside. 39. Assuming that the power under Section 152 of CPC was not available or assuming that invocation of Section 152 was improper, the trial Court should have nevertheless invoked its power under Section 151 of CPC and ought to have passed orders and corrected the decree to the effect that it pertained to CTS No 1702B in order to prevent miscarriage of justice. 40. I am therefore of the view that this is a case were Section 151 of CPC would have to be invoked and inherent powers available to this Court will have to be exercised. It is hereby ordered that the judgment and decree obtained by the plaintiff in R.A.No.6/2007 should be construed as being a judgment and a decree granted for the possession of CTS No.1703 as indicated in the hand sketch map and the suit schedule property used in the decree should be construed as property bearing CTS No.1703 notwithstanding that the fact in the plaint the words CTS Nos.1702B, 1704 has been mentioned. 41. The impugned order is set aside and it is hereby held that the decree obtained by the plaintiff is in relation to property bearing CTS No.1703. 42. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.