1. ' This application under section 152, C.P.C. Read with section 151, C.P.C. Has been filed by the plaintiff, in whose favour the suit was decreed on 22-12-1988, for Rs, 14,50,000 together with costs and interest. It is stated that in the judgment and decree, passed by me, there was discrepancy and/or typographical error in the decretal amount, which should have been Rs, 23,78,680.39 instead of Rs, 14,50,000 as per title and relief clause contained in the plaint. The plaintiff prays for correction of the amount in the last para of the judgment and also in the decree passed by the Court.
2. ' The defendants have opposed this application stating that the judgment is very clear inasmuch as the final paragraph of the judgment states. "As a result, I decree the suit against defendant for Rs, 14,50,000 together with the costs and interest as prayed." Hence it is urged by Mr. Sadruddin Huda, learned counsel for the defendant that there is no mistake, typographical error or discrepancy and otherwise the plaintiff have not filed any appeal or review and this application is now barred. In support learned counsel has relied upon Haji Ishtiaq Ahmed and 2 others v.
3. Bakhshaya and 7 others reported in 1976 SCMR page 420, wherein it was held as under:-- "It will be seen that this section permits the correction of clerical or arithmetically mistakes in judgments and decrees etc. Or of errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, but does not authorise the Court to supplement its judgments, decrees, orders or directions which required application of mind, and have the effect of taking the rights which may have otherwise accrued to one party or the other."
4. ' The plaintiff's claim for Rs,23,78,680.39 is based upon a letter of guarantee dated 3-10-1973 for Rs, 14,50,000 furnished by the defendant in their favour. It is urged by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Syed Iqbal Ahmed, that the defendants nowhere either in their written-statement or counter-affidavit have called in question the suit amount viz. Rs,23,73,680. Besides reference to as "prayed" in the last line of judgment points out to the said suit amount which is an accidental or inadvertant omission and therefore, the judgment and decree can be amended under section 152, C.P.C. Which reads as under:-- "152. Amendment of judgments. Decree or ordeRs,---Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decree 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. ' In support, counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon a number of reported cases. In AIR 1937 Oudh 191, a Division Bench had held that where the judgment and decree given in respect of possession has omitted to order as to mesne profits, appeal or review was not only remedy open to the applicant and that section 152, C.P.C. Was wide enough to cover a case of accidental omission of an order as to mesne profits in judgment. In R.M.K.R.M. Somasudaram Chetty v. M.R.M.V.L.
6. Subramanian Chetty (AIR 1926 Privy Council 136), it was held that the "Court has no jurisdiction after the judgment at the trial has been passed and entered to refer the case. The only cases in which the Court can interfere after the passing and entering of the judgment are (1) where there has been an accident of slip in the judgment as drawn up in which case the Court has power to rectify it and (2) that the Court itself found the judgment as drawn up does not directly state what the Court actually decided and intended. In Re. Raj Bahadur Singh AIR (29) 1942 Oudh 226, it was held that a mistake arisen from oversight on the part of a Judge can be corrected under section 152, C.P.C. Provided the Court exercises discretion not capriciously but judicially. It was further held that the lapse of time, however, considerable is no bar to the correction of errors under section 152, C.P.C. Similar views were expressed in AIR 1940 Calcutta 202.
7. ' Admittedly, the defendants had raised legal pleas with regard to the period and maintainability of guarantee furnished by them to the plaintiff which were rejected vide judgment dated 22-12-1988 and accordingly the suit was decreed against them. Neither any issue was framed as to the quantum of amount claimed under the guarantee nor any evidence was adduced calling in question the same. There is also nothing in the judgment whereby the claim of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs,9,28,680.39 being the difference between the suit amount of Rs,23,73,680.39 and original guaranteed amount of Rs, 14,50,000 has been disallowed by the Court. Hence, the case of Haji Ishtiaq Ahmed and 2 others v. Bakhshaya and 7 others (1976 SCMR 420) cited by Mr. Sadruddin Huda, learned counsel for the defendant has no application to the facts of this case as obviously there is nothing to supplement the judgment or directions which require application of mind. It is a clear cut case of accidental slip or omission.
8. ' I agree with Mr. Syed Iqbal Ahmed, learned counsel for the plaintiff A that there is nothing in law which restricts the power of the Court to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgment, decree or order or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission at any time. In such a case it is not incumbent upon an affected party to prefer appeal or file an application for review although these courses are also open to him. Accordingly, I accept the application and correct the omission by substitution of the decretal amount with the sum of Rs, 23,78,680.39 in place of Rs, 14,50,000 in the said final paragraph of the judgment. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.