1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 675 OF 2008 Shri Anandrao Ganpatrao Asabe, since deceased through his legal heirs :- 1) Smt. Sunanda Anandrao Asabe & Ors. .. Applicants vs. Shri Motiram Swarupa Patil, Deceased through heirs :0 1) Shri Keraba Motiram Patil & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Amit B.Bokar, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr.D.S.Sawant,Advocate, for the respondents Nos.1(A), 1(C) & 1(D). CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 18th March , 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was the original plaintiff and he had filed Special civil Suit No.211 of 1998 seeking compensation of Rs.10 lakh with permanent injunction against the original defendant -Motiram Swarupa Patil. It was alleged that the said defendant had unauthorisedly cultivated the land of the plaintiff for 2 about 22 years and had deprived the plaintiff from the use and earnings of the land which could have been Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum. He had also harassed mentally and physically. The plaintiff claimed lumpsum amount of Rs. 10 lakh as compensation on account of the mesne profits as well as mental and physical harassment. The trial court framed the issues. Issue nos. 2 and 3 were as follows :- “2. What would have been the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff within the aforesaid period by way of mesne profits ? 3. What amount of compensation if any the plaintiff is entitled for ?” The learned trial Court held that the damages sustained by the plaintiff would be Rs.10,000/- per annum but in issue No.3, the Court held that he was not entitled to compensation. In view of this finding, the suit was decreed only to the extent of perpetual injunction. No compensation was awarded. That judgment was passed on 24.9.2001. It appears that the petitioner filed an application under Section 152, C.P.C. for correction of the judgment and decree in 2005. That application came to be rejected by the order dated 13.8.2008. The present Revision Application is filed challenging rejection of that application. 3 On perusal of the Judgment in the suit, it is clear that the trial Court had refused the relief of compensation. An appeal could have been preferred against the same. Under Sec. 152, CPC, clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may be corrected by the Court either suo mottu or on the application of any of the parties. When the Court after having considered all the material rejected the claim for compensation, it cannot be said that it was arithmetical or clerical mistakes in the same. Therefore, Sec.152, CPC could not be invoked. The proper remedy for the plaintiff would be to prefer an appeal against part of the claim which was rejected by the trial Court. In view of these circumstances, I find no fault with the impugned order rejecting application under Sec.152. Therefore the Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)