JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. The instant petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 25.11.2019 passed in Partition Suit No.418 of 2016 by learned Sub-Judge-X, Ranchi has been assailed by which the petition dated 18.02.2019 filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 2. As per the case of the petitioner, a partition suit was filed for partition of their ancestral property. During the pendency of the partition suit, the co-sharers have entered into a compromise based upon the settlement. 3. The same has been brought to the notice of the learned court. The learned trial court on the basis of that settlement, has passed the judgment based upon that the decree was also passed. 4. As per the petitioner, in the judgment, the following typographical errors have been crept up :- “In page 1, of the judgment in para 2 line 2 plot no.531 is wrongly typed whereas actual plot no. is 538 needs to be amended. That in page 1 of the judgment in para 2 line 4 plot no is typed 151 whereas actual plot no is 951 needs to be amended. He further submitted in page no 1 of the judgment in para 2 line 6 area is typed 75 decimals whereas actual area is 76 decimals needs to be amended. That in page 3 in para 4 line 7 total area typed as 1.93 acres whereas actual area is 1.92 acres may be amended. That in line 8 area wrongly typed 1.93 whereas actual area is 1.92 acres may be amended in line no 24 area wrongly typed as 1.93 acres whereas area is 1.92 acres may be amended. That in page no 4 in line six area was written as 1.93 acres whereas actual areas is 1.92 acres may be amended. That in page no 4 line seven area was written 1.93 acres were as actual area is 1.92 acres may be amended. In page no 4 line twenty four area was written 1.93 acres whereas actual area is 1.92 acres may be amended. That in page no 7 in line four area was written as 1.93 acres whereas actual area is 1.92 acres may be amended. In page no 4 line twenty four area was written 1.93 acres whereas actual area is 1.92 acres may be amended. That in page no 7 in line four area was written as 1.93 acres whereas actual area is 1.92 acres may be amended. That in page no 7 in line seven areas was written as .965 acres whereas actual area was 0.96 acres may be amended. In page 7 para 11 line six plot no was wrongly typed as 964 whereas actual plot no is 968 may be amended. In page 7 para 11 line eight total area was written as 1.93 decimals whereas actual area is 1.92 acres may be amended. That in the decree which was prepared on 16.11.2018 there was also few typing mistakes. In page no 1 of the decree in sl. no 2 the plaintiff name was wrongly typed the plaintiff is Munna Kujur was it typed as Minne Kujur may be amended. In page no 2 in the schedule of the property total area 1.93 acres was typed whereas actual area is 1.92 acres.” 5. The plaintiff on the aforesaid backdrop, has filed a petition under Section 152 of the C.P.C. but the same has been rejected vide order dated 25.11.2019 on the ground that the copy of the judgment and decree have been the reproduction of the language of the plaint and, as such, the requirement was to file a proper petition for amendment. The said order is under challenge. 6. The matter was heard by this Court on 12.01.2024. Notice was issued upon the opposite parties including the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, who was arrayed as a party to the proceeding before the learned trial court, and, as such, before this Court in view of the fact that the land falls under the schedule area. 7. The contesting respondents, i.e., Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are being represented by Mr. Pankaj Srivastava and Mr. Ritesh Kumar respectively. 8. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi who is O.P. No.2, even though the notice has been served through dasti as per the supplementary affidavit where the acknowledgement of the notice has been appended but there is no appearance. 9. Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 and Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 have jointly submitted that they are having no objection if any correction will be made. 9. Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 and Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 have jointly submitted that they are having no objection if any correction will be made. Such concession has been given on the ground that the error which has been sought to be rectified by filing petition under Section 152 C.P.C. is clerical in nature since the correction which is sought to be made was already available in the plaint as also the joint compromise petition but due to typographical error, wrong reference has been made in the judgment passed and in consequence thereof, decree has been prepared. 10. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the pleading as also the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order. 11. The consideration which is to be made by this Court that in which circumstances the concerned court can exercise the power as conferred under Section 152 C.P.C. 12. This Court, for the purpose of consideration of the said issue, needs to refer herein the provision of Section 152 C.P.C. 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.” 13. It is evident from the provision of Section 152 C.P.C. that clerical error if has been found or also the arithmetical error, then the power can be exercised by the concerned court for making necessary correction in the judgment under Section 152 C.P.C. 14. Clerical or arithmetical error has been interpreted by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Telangana Housing Board v. Azamunnisa Begum, (2018) 7 SCC 346 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that a clerical or arithmetical error is an error occasioned by an accidental slip or omission of the court. It represents that which the court never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its discovery on argument or disputation. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid Judgment are being quoted as under : 50. It represents that which the court never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its discovery on argument or disputation. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid Judgment are being quoted as under : 50. Similarly, a clerical error was discussed in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, (1981) 1 SCC 500 . In para 4 of the report, reference was made to Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1047 and it was held as follows : (SCC p. 502) “4. … A clerical or arithmetical error is an error occasioned by an accidental slip or omission of the court. It represents that which the court never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its discovery on argument or disputation. An arithmetical error is a mistake of calculation, and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing.” 51. More recently, in Vipinchandra Vadilal Bavishi v. State of Gujarat, (2016) 4 SCC 531 it was held in para 26 of the report as follows : (SCC p. 543) “26. An arithmetical mistake is a mistake in calculation, while a clerical mistake is a mistake of writing or typing error occurring due to accidental slip or omissions or error due to careless mistake or omission. In our considered opinion, substituting different lands in place of the lands which have been notified by a statutory notification under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) [Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976] cannot and shall not be done by issuing a corrigendum unless the mandatory requirements contained in the aforementioned sections is complied with. A landholder cannot be divested from his land on the plea of clerical or arithmetical mistake liable to be corrected by issuing corrigendum.” 15. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 328 has categorically observed that the basis of the provision under Section 152 of the Code is founded on the maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit” i.e. an act of court shall prejudice no man and an unintentional mistake of the court which may prejudice the cause of any party must and alone could be rectified. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being quoted as under : “13. The basis of the provision under Section 152 of the Code is founded on the maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit” i.e. an act of court shall prejudice no man. The maxim “is founded upon justice and good sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law”, said Cresswell, J. in Freeman v. Tranah [12 CB 406 : 138 ER 964] (ER p. 967). An unintentional mistake of the court which may prejudice the cause of any party must and alone could be rectified. In Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [ AIR 1966 SC 1047 ] it was observed that the arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing whereas an error arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake on the part of the court, liable to be corrected. To illustrate this point, it was said that in a case where the order contains something which is not mentioned in the decree, it would be a case of unintentional omission or mistake as the mistake or omission is attributable to the court which may say something or omit to say something which it did not intend to say or omit. No new arguments or re-arguments on merits can be entertained to facilitate such rectification of mistakes. The provision cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original order or decree so as to, in effect, pass an effective judicial order after the judgment in the case.” 16. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Shashi Mohan Kapur, (2020) 20 SCC 798 has reiterated the same view. For ready reference the same is being quoted as under : “42. Section 152 of the Code deals with the amendment of judgments, decrees or orders. It provides that any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the 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. It provides that any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the 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. Order 20 Rule 3 also provides that judgment can be altered or added either under Section 152 or in review. 43. In our opinion, in order to invoke the powers under Section 152 of the Code, two conditions must be present. First, there has to be a judgment or decree or an order, as the case may be, and second, the judgment or decree or order, as the case may be, must contain any clerical or arithmetical error for its rectification. In other words, Section 152 of the Code contemplates that the court has passed the judgment, decree or the order and the same contains clerical or arithmetical error.” 17. This Court is now proceeding to examine the factual aspect on the basis of the spirit of Section 152 C.P.C. having been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred hereinabove so as to reach to the conclusion that the correction which has been sought for can be said to be substantial change in the judgment or only clerical in nature. 18. The substantial change will be said to be if a foreign thing has been sought to be inserted in the impugned judgment after closure of the proceeding. The same will not be permissible due to the simple reason that the moment the judgment has been passed, the concerned court will become functus officio and for that reason the power has been conferred under Section 152 C.P.C. for carrying out necessary correction if there is clerical error or there is error arithmetical in nature. 19. The fact about making necessary correction in the judgment is available in the plaint as also coupled with the settlement based upon which the partition suit was decreed and the judgment has been prepared. 20. This Court has perused the plaint as also the compromise petition and found therefrom that there are some errors in the judgment and, therefore, the petition was filed under Section 152 C.P.C. 21. 20. This Court has perused the plaint as also the compromise petition and found therefrom that there are some errors in the judgment and, therefore, the petition was filed under Section 152 C.P.C. 21. Since the fact was already there as has been sought to be rectified, hence, it cannot be said that any new thing is sought to be inserted in the judgment. Therefore, the same will be said to be a typing mistake that is a clerical error and hence, the petition is well entertainable under Section 152 C.P.C. 22. The learned court has rejected the same on the ground that the concerned litigant ought to have filed a proper petition under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. but there is no reason as to how a petition under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. can be filed after closure of the entire proceeding. 23. The provision which is to be exercised under Order VI rule 17 is by way of an order said to be interlocutory in nature which can only be entertained during pendency of the proceeding, either the original proceeding or at the appellate stage. 24. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the finding so recorded while rejecting the petition under Section 152 C.P.C. mainly on the ground that such amendment ought to have been incorporated by filing petition under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., suffers from error. 25. This Court is exercising the power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India although there is very limited jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the concerned court. However, interference can be made if there is any error apparent on the face of it. 26. It needs to refer herein the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dealing with the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vrs. Rajendra Shankar Patii, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has been pleased to laid down therein regarding the scope of Article 227 which relates to the supervisory powers of the High Courts and by taking aid of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vrs. Vrs. Rajendra Shankar Patii, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has been pleased to laid down therein regarding the scope of Article 227 which relates to the supervisory powers of the High Courts and by taking aid of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vrs. Sukumar Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1951 Calcutta 193, wherein it has been laid down that Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not vest the High Court with limitless power which may be exercised at the court’s discretion to remove the hardship of particular decisions. The power of superintendence confers power of a known and well recognized character and should be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character. In general words, the High Court’s power of superintendence is a power to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of the authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. 27. The power of superintendence is not to be exercised unless there has been:- (a) An unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in a court or tribunal; or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction; or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in courts or tribunals. 28. Further, in the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken aid of a judgment rendered in the case of Mani Nariman Daruwala Vrs. Phiroz N. Bhatena, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 141 , wherein it has been laid down that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court can set aside or reverse finding of an inferior court or tribunal only in a case where there is no evidence or where no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the court or tribunal has come to. 29. The Hon’ble Apex Court has made it clear that except to this limited extent, the High court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of facts. 30. Further, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani Vrs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576 , it has been laid down that the High Court under Article 227 cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. 30. Further, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani Vrs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576 , it has been laid down that the High Court under Article 227 cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. Its exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. 31. It has been laid down at paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is not original nor is it appellable. This jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 is for both administrative and judicial superintendence. Therefore, the powers conferred under Article 226 and 227 are separate and distinct and operate in different fields. Another distinction between these two jurisdictions is that under Article 226 the High Court normally annuls or quashes an order or proceedings but in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court, apart from annulling the proceeding, can also substitute the impugned order by the order which the inferior tribunal should have made. 32. It has further been laid down regarding the powers to be exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence, can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it within the bounds of its authority, in order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested with them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. Apart from that, High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 33. In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. 34. 33. In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. 34. This Court, applying the principle in the facts and circumstances of the case, is of the view that the error is apparent on the face of the order, as per the discussion made hereinabove. Hence, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 35. The instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. 36. The learned trial court is directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law.