IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.51 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus SMT. BINDA DEVI With C.R. No.49 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus KAILASH SINGH With C.R. No.50 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus KAILASH SINGH With C.R. No.52 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus JAGAT KISHORE PRASAD ----------- 2 16.01.2009 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned Government Advocate in support of all these four Civil Revision applications. For the reasons mentioned the applications (I.A. No. 190 of 2009 in C.R.No.51 of 2009, I.A.No.191 of 2009 in C.R. No. 52 of 2009, I.A. No. 189 of 2009 in C.R. No. 50 of 2009, I.A. No. 188 of 2009 in C.R. No. 49 of 2009), the delay in filing of these applications is hereby condoned. Coming to the merits of this case, this Court would find that the scope of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure is absolutely confined. A judgment or a decree may be wrong or right in law but to say that the same suffers from either arithmetical or clerical error as to be distinguished from other errors will be absolutely a different thing. In all these four cases, as a matter of fact, the petitioner State of Bihar through the Collector had already pointed out such - 2 - arithmetical or clerical error in its application which were considered by the Court below on two grounds by its order dated 5.6.1998 and 23.9.1998. Such orders rejecting the prayer for correction in the decree on the basis there being arithmetical or clerical error, were allowed to become final. Therefore, there was no logic much less any justification for making similar prayer before the Court below and if such prayer has been rejected by the Court below by the impugned order the same cannot be said to be vitiated by any jurisdictional error. This Court on analysis of the fact and the submissions as placed by the learned counsel is further satisfied that whatever was pressed by way of arithmetical or clerical error on behalf of the petitioner in fact was not so and such errors were/are capable of corrected only by way of appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. Counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that appeals have also filed against such awards. That being so, the remedy for the petitioner is to press these issues before the appellate Court instead of unnecessarily wasting the time of the Court below and also of this Court. All these four Civil Revision applications being without any substance are accordingly, dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)