This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 08-9-2011 in I.A.No.1483 of 2009 in O.S.No.2 of 1998 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur.

2. I have heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel, instructed by Sri V.M.M.Chary, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioners are defendants in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of certain amounts on the basis of mortgage. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent. The respondent thereupon filed I.A.No.1483 of 2009 seeking permission to correct the boundaries of the plaint schedule and consequently to correct the boundaries of the decree schedule. Even though the petitioners have resisted the application by filing a counter affidavit, however, having regard to the nature of the corrections sought for by the respondent, the Court below has allowed the said application. Assailing the said order, the petitioners have filed the present civil revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that Section 153 of C.P.C., on which reliance has been placed by the Court below may not, in strict terms, apply to the case on hand because the suit was no longer pending and that the Court below has committed a serious error in permitting amendment of the plaint schedule after disposal of the suit.

5. On a perusal of the provisions of Section 153 of C.P.C., I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The said provision is wide enough to comprehend any proceeding including the execution proceedings as well.

6. Indeed in TILAK RAJ v. BAIKUNTHI DEVI ((2010) 12 SCC 585), the Supreme Court has held that since the Court exists to dispense justice, any mistake which is found to be clerical in nature should be allowed to be rectified by exercising inherent power vested in the Court for subserving the cause of justice. The Supreme Court placed reliance on many judicial precedents in this regard in making these observations.

7. The Court below has held that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the property and that the amendment was sought only to rectify the mistake occurred in describing the boundaries of the property in the plaint schedule and the consequent mistake taken place in drafting the decree.

8. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

9. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.

10. As a sequel to the dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.7033 of 2011 is also dismissed.