THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4362 of 2009 ORDER: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.178 of 2003 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa against respondent No.2 and the petitioner for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of a wall mentioned in the suit schedule. The suit was decreed on 31.12.2004. The petitioner and respondent No.2 filed A.S.No.33 of 2005 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was partly allowed through judgment, dated 18.08.2008, directing that the injunction in favour of respondent No.2 shall be only to the extent of wall which is already existing, meaning thereby, the wall C-D as mentioned in the schedule plan and observing that as regards the remaining portion of the wall, injunction shall not operate. However, the letters E-F wall were not mentioned in the decree or judgment. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1021 of 2009 under Section 152 C.P.C. with a prayer to clarify the decree. Through its order, dated 14.07.2009, the lower appellate Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri D.Raghava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the decree was not drawn by the lower appellate Court in conformity with the judgment in the appeal. Therefore, filing of application under Section 152 C.P.C. was untenable. In case the petitioner wanted anything to be added in the judgment itself, the only course open to her is to seek review. The parameters for adjudication of a petition filed for review on the one hand and the correction of the decree on the other, are totally different. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue her remedy if she feels that the grievance still exists. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:20.07.2010 Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl