IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP No. 205 of 2010 in LPA No. 141 of 2007 Order Reserved on: 07.04.2010 Date of decision: 09.04.2010 Himachal Pradesh State Industrial … Appellant/Non-Applicant Development Corporation(HPSIDC) Versus M/s S.C. Johnson Products Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent No.1/Applicant and others. Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. No. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant/Non-Applicant: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/Applicant: Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate. Per V.K. Ahuja, J.: This order shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant/respondent No. 1 for correction of judgment. A notice of the application was issued to the non- applicant/appellant. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The contention putforth by the learned counsel for the applicant were that this Court had failed to deal with or decide the most important question argued and raised before it that the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 company was not liable to pay unearned increase. It was also submitted that it has been wrongly observed by this Court in this judgment that there was no dispute in regard to the payment of the maintenance charges due to H.P.S.I.D.C. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRs and Others Vs. Pramod Gupta(Smt.)(Dead) by LRs. And others, (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 272, wherein Maxims Ubi Jus ibi remedium has been referred to that the Court should aim to preserve and protect the rights of parties and extend help to enforce them. The decision in Devi Roop Vs Smt. Devku and others, 2006(2) Shim. LC 158, was relied upon, in which it was observed that the mere fact that appeal was decided after notice and not in limine would not take away jurisdiction of trial Court to amend its judgment and decree because of the fact that there was no decision on the case by the District Judge. Both these decisions are not attracted to the present facts since the present application is mainly for review of the judgment, which is not permissible under these provisions. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/appellant had submitted that these questions pertain to the merits of the case and once the findings have been given by the Court that the applicant was liable to pay unearned increase as well as the maintenance charges. This point cannot be reviewed by this Court under the provisions of Sections, 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the non-applicant/appellant. Section 151 C.P.C. deals 3 with inherent powers of the Court, while Section 152 C.P.C. provides for correction of the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgment. Section 153 C.P.C. deals with power to amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit. The questions being raised now by the applicant/respondent are on the merits of the case, which findings have already been given by this Court including the principal question as to whether the applicant was liable to pay unearned increase or not. In a way the applicant wants review of the judgment passed by this Court, which is not permissible under these provisions and as such, there is no merit in the application filed by the applicant/respondent, which is dismissed accordingly. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge ( V.K. Ahuja ), April 09, 2010 Judge (BSS) 4