IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.39 of 2009 Shaligram Singh Versus Ram Sudhar Singh & Ors ---------------------------------- 5 14-9-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties. The present revision application has been filed against the order dated 24-10-2008 by which the petition under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the court below. It is not disputed that a suit for partition bearing T.S.No. 120 of 1994 had been filed, which ended into a compromise before the Lok Adalat and a compromise decree was accordingly passed. However, when the decree- holder filed a petition for execution of the said decree, he added three more plots in the execution petition, although those plots were not there in the decree. On the objection by the judgment-debtor, those three plots had been ordered to be deleted from the execution petition. Aggrieved by the said order the decree-holder moved this Court in C.R.No. 674 of 2005 which was dismissed by order dated 7-11-2007 with liberty to the decree-holder to take steps for 2 amendment in the compromise decree itself. Pursuant to the said liberty the decree-holder filed a petition for amendment in the compromise decree by including three plots, but the said prayer was rejected by the order dated 24-10-2008 and the said order was allowed to attain finality, as the same was not challenged by the decree-holder. However, the decree holder filed a petition purporting to be under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure making the prayer for inclusion of the three plots in the decree. By the impugned order the court below has rejected the prayer on the ground that the same prayer had earlier been rejected. The further ground for rejecting the prayer of the decree-holder/petitioner is that the petition under section 152 of the C.P.C. can be entertained for clerical or arithmetical error occurring in the decree and not for any other purpose. Learned counsel has submitted that in the compromise petition those three plots were there but by mistake in the compromise decree the three plots could not be included and such omission was not very material. However, in view of the earlier rejection of the same prayer, the learned court below has committed no illegality in passing the impugned order. There is no infirmity in the 3 impugned order as such. This revision application is accordingly dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)