JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. Revisionists - plaintiffs filed an Original Suit (No.137 of 2013) for cancellation of the sale-deed. The valuation of the subject matter of the said suit was fixed by the plaintiffs at Rs.3,12,000/- (Rupees three lakh twelve thousand). The said Original Suit was decided on 28.01.2023. While deciding the said Original Suit, the value of the subject matter of the Suit was found by learned Trial Court to be Rs.1,10,00,005/- (Rupees one crore ten lakh five). The revisionists - plaintiffs filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stating that the said valuation as mentioned in the judgment is typographical error and requested to amend the judgment dated 28.01.2023. The said Application has been dismissed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Rishikesh, Dehradun vide impugned order dated 10.02.2023. 2. Heard Mr.Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists - plaintiffs and Mr.Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. In the said Original Suit, additional issues of valuation and court fee were framed after filing the additional written statement. It is clearly mentioned in the said judgment that both the parties were heard on the issue of valuation and then the learned Trial Court had ascertained the said valuation of the subject matter of the suit property. 4. The provision of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is as follows:- "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." 5. According to the judgment passed by learned Trial Court, both the parties were heard on the issue of valuation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the ascertained value of the subject matter of the Suit (Rs.1,10,00,005/-) was only clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slip. 6. Therefore, no infirmity is found in the impugned order. 7. Mr.Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists - plaintiffs, submitted that a First Appeal, against the said judgment and decree, has been filed before the First Appellate Court, and, the said Appeal has been registered as a miscellaneous case. 8. 6. Therefore, no infirmity is found in the impugned order. 7. Mr.Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists - plaintiffs, submitted that a First Appeal, against the said judgment and decree, has been filed before the First Appellate Court, and, the said Appeal has been registered as a miscellaneous case. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionists-plaintiffs submitted that the revisionists-plaintiffs will withdraw the said Appeal to file an appeal before the High Court as per law. 9. Civil Revision (No.47 of 2023) is dismissed accordingly.