IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 105 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2007 IN IA.1740/2007 IN OS.352/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------- MARIYAMMA GEORGE, W/O.GEORGE, ARAYANAM VEETTIL, MARUTHORVATTOM MURI, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, EDAVAZHICKAL, EAST OF ST.MARY'S BRIDGE, VADAKKUM MURI, CHERTHALA P.O. 2. LAISAMMA, W/O.JOSEPH OF DO. DO. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No.105 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 5th day of February 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Addl.Munsiff's Court, Cherthala in I.A.No.1740 of 2007 in O.S.No.352 of 2005. It was an application for correction of the decree and judgment under Sections 152 and 151 of the C.P.C. Section 152 of the C.P.C entitles the court to amend any 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. Prayer No.2 in the plaint itself is worded in a complicated manner and so many prayers are incorporated in one sentence which includes the restoration of a laboratory with a further prayer to use the motor and water, etc. etc. Learned counsel referred to the last sentence in paragraph 9 of the judgment which reads as follows: “In the result, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of mandatory injunction for the restoration of toilet as prayed for”. In the operative portion of the judgment also the court has made it clear that defendants are directed by CRP 105/2008 -:2:- means of mandatory injunction to remove blockage from laboratory room to toilet and to restore its eastern wall within 60 days from the date of judgment. I am not able to find out from the judgment with respect to the usage of water, etc. Therefore, I am not inclined to hold that it is an accidental mistake or omission arising and that can be corrected under Section 152 C.P.C. Learned counsel has referred to the decision of this Court in Varghese v. Indian Bank(1998(2) KLT 601). There the principle of error in the judgment arising out of an intentional accidental slip or omission can be corrected by amendment of the judgment and decree. There cannot be any quarrel about that proposition. But factually what is to be noted is whether it is an accidental slip or omission. I am not able to come to that conclusion by reading the judgment that it is an omission. The points which should have been considered but not considered by the court below certainly the party can move the court for review of the judgment and it is the proper remedy. This is what is precisely directed by the learned Munsiff as well. Therefore I find C.R.P is devoid of merit and hence it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/- CRP 105/2008 -:3:-