THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4941 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against order dated 25.08.2010 passed in I.A.No.181 of 2009 in O.S.No.190 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, whereunder the application filed under Order 152 of CPC to amend the preliminary decree dated 13.09.2009 by correcting the particulars of rate of interest as 13% in place of 7%, interest calculated from the date of filing of the sit till the date of disposal of the suit as Rs.1,22,308/- in place of Rs.1,12,000/- and suit amount, in all, awarded to the plaintiff bank as Rs.5,26,671/- in place of Rs.4,27,456/-, was allowed. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Petitioner herein is the 1st defendant, 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and respondents 2 and 3 herein are defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.190 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, filed for recovery of money, and the suit was decreed on 13.09.2009 awarding interest at the rate of 13% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. However, subsequently, the present application in I.A.No.181 of 2009 was filed by the plaintiff contending that in the decree prepared consequent to passing of the judgment in the said suit, due to typographical mistake, the rate of interest was wrongly shown as 7% per annum and also the interest was calculated at 7% per annum only from the date of suit till the date of decree, though the judgment reflects the rate of interest as 13% per annum, and also the outstanding amount shown in the decree is also not correct. Respondent resisted the petition by filing counter. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Court below allowed the present application, by order dated 25.08.2010, holding that the clerical and typographical mistakes in the decree can be corrected by invoking the provisions of Section 152 of C.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submits that the scope of Section 152 of C.P.C. does not permit the Court to amend the decree by altering the rate of interest as 13% per annum in place of 7% per annum. He further submits that if an error occurred in calculations i.e. if 6+7 is shown as 15 instead of 13, then it can be called as a clerical error and such type of errors fall under Section 152 of C.P.C. and can be corrected. He relied upon the judgment in P.Prasad vs. Shirdi Enterprises, Hyderabad[1], in support of his contention, and drawn the attention of this Court to para 3 of the said judgment. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. From a perusal of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the facts of that case are not applicable to the present case. As can be seen from the impugned order, the trial Court has passed the judgment in O.S.No.190 of 2006 in unambiguous terms holding that the plaintiff is entitled for interest at 13% per annum on the suit amount from the date of the suit ill the date of decree, whereas in the decree, it was wrongly shown as 7% per annum, which is nothing but a clerical error. When once the judgment is very clear with regard to awarding of interest at 13% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, then showing the rate of interest at 7% per annum from the date of suit till the decree, in the decree, can certainly be called a clerical error. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 15.12.2010 v v [1] 2005(1) ALD page 787