JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri C.B. Adarsh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed OS No.482 of 2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for eviction of the defendants (2 in number) in the suit from the suit schedule property and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages from 06.05.2017 till the date of delivery. The suit was decreed on 10.09.2018. The appellant (defendant No.1 in the suit) filed AS No.219 of 2019. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of learned VI Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada. 3. The Appellate Court passed the following decree. “(i) that the appeal is be and hereby dismissed. (ii) that the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court in OS No.482 of 2017 dated 10.09.2018 is be and hereby confirmed. (iii) that the appellant and 2nd respondent are be and hereby directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of suit schedule property to the 1st respondent/plaintiff within two months failing which the 1st respondent/plaintiff is at liberty to take the delivery by following procedure contemplated under law. (iv) that the appellant and 2nd respondent are be and hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- to the 1st respondent/plaintiff being the arrears of rent and a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month towards damages from 06.05.2017 till the date of delivery. (v) that IA No.47 of 2024 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is be and hereby simultaneously disposed of dismissing the petition. (vi) that the appellant do pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.23,254/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand two hundred and fifty four only) towards costs do bear their own costs of Rs.-Nil- (Bill of costs not filed). Note : Amended as per orders in IA No.77 of 2024 dated 06.12.2024. Given under my hand and seal of this Court, on this the 28th day of August, 2024.” 4. There appeared a mistake in the decree in clause (6) in first line, the ‘respondents’ was mentioned in place of ‘appellant’ and in the same line the ‘appellant’ was mentioned instead of ‘respondents’. 5. The plaintiff-respondent filed IA No.77 of 2024 under Section 152 of CPC for correction in decree. 6. There appeared a mistake in the decree in clause (6) in first line, the ‘respondents’ was mentioned in place of ‘appellant’ and in the same line the ‘appellant’ was mentioned instead of ‘respondents’. 5. The plaintiff-respondent filed IA No.77 of 2024 under Section 152 of CPC for correction in decree. 6. IA No.77 of 2024 was allowed, making the correction in clause (6) of the appellate decree, correcting the ‘appellant’ for the ‘respondents’ and ‘respondents’ for the ‘appellant’ at the respective places. 7. Challenging the said order, the civil revision petition has been filed. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by such correction now the present appellant has been directed to pay the costs. The liability has been passed on the petitioner. He submits that such mistake is not ‘clerical’ or ‘arithmetical’ mistake and therefore could not be corrected under Section 152 CPC. 9. I have considered the aforesaid submission and perused the material on record. 10. Section 152 of CPC reads as under : “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.” 11. Section 152 CPC clearly provides that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or even 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 or any of the parties. 12. In Samarendra Nath Sinha v. Krishna Kumar Nag, 1966 SCC Online SC 29, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is well-settled that there is an inherent power in the Court which passed the judgment to correct a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission. 13. It is relevant to refer Para 11 of the said judgment which is reproduced as under : “11. Now, it is well-settled that there is an inherent power in the Court which passed the judgment to correct a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission and to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. Now, it is well-settled that there is an inherent power in the Court which passed the judgment to correct a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission and to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. “Every Court,” said Bowen, L.J., in Mellor v. Swira “has inherent power over its own records so long as those records are within its power and that it can set right any mistake in them. An order even when passed and entered may be amended by the Court so as to carry out its intention and express the meaning of the Court when the order was made”. In Janakirama Iyer v. Nilakanta Iyer, the decree as drawn up in the High Court had used the words “mesne profits” instead of “net profits”. In fact the use of the words “mesne profits” came to be made probably because while narrating the facts, those words were inadvertently used in the judgment. This Court held that the use of the words “mesne profits” in the context was obviously the result of inadvertence in view of the fact that the decree of the Trial Court had specifically used the words “net profits” and therefore the decretal order drawn up in the High Court through mistake could be corrected under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code even after the High Court had granted certificate and appeals were admitted in this Court before the date of the correction. It is true that under Order 20, Rule 3 of the Code once a judgment is signed by the Judge it cannot be altered or added to but the rule expressly provides that a correction can be made under Section 152. The Rule does not also affect the Court’s inherent power under Section 151. Under Section 152, 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 on its own motion or on an application by any of the parties. It is thus manifest that errors arising from an accidental slip can be corrected subsequently not only in a decree drawn up by a ministerial officer of the Court but even in a judgment pronounced and signed by the Court.” 14. It is thus manifest that errors arising from an accidental slip can be corrected subsequently not only in a decree drawn up by a ministerial officer of the Court but even in a judgment pronounced and signed by the Court.” 14. In Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society Limited, (2007) 13 SCC 421 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under in Paras 18 and 19 : “18. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to correct its own error in a judgment, decree or order from any accidental slip or omission. The principle behind the said provision is actus curiae neminem gravabit i.e., nobody shall be prejudiced by an act of Court. 19. The Code of Civil Procedure recognises the inherent power of the Court. It is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under Section 152 of the Code but also inherent power in general. The Courts also have duty to see that the records are true and present the correct state of affair. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the Court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to review its judgment. It cannot also exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake or slip occurred in the decree or order. This provision, in our opinion, should, however, not be construed in a pedantic manner. A decree may, therefore, be corrected by the Court both in exercise of its power under Section 152 as also under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a power of the Court is well recognized.” 15. We are not convinced with the submission that the mistake in the decree, corrected vide impugned order is not a clerical mistake. 16. The decree is drawn in terms of the judgment, the operative part. 17. The appeal was filed by the present petitioner. It is so evident from the judgment Para 26 that the appeal of the present appellant was dismissed with costs, so costs was to be paid by the appellant. 18. When correction is read in the light of the direction in the judgment, i.e., the appellant was directed to pay the costs, as the appeal was dismissed with costs, the mention in the decree ‘respondents’ in place of the ‘appellant’ and ‘appellant’ in place of the ‘respondents’, is nothing but a clerical mistake. 18. When correction is read in the light of the direction in the judgment, i.e., the appellant was directed to pay the costs, as the appeal was dismissed with costs, the mention in the decree ‘respondents’ in place of the ‘appellant’ and ‘appellant’ in place of the ‘respondents’, is nothing but a clerical mistake. There is no imposing a new or additional liability on the petitioner by correction in the decree. 19. I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Court. 20. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. 21. No order as to costs. 22. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.