1. This Civil Revision Application arises out of the order passed below Exh. 1 in M.A. No.82/2003, by learned District Judge, Latur on 31.3.2004 and the petitioner herein prayed that the said impugned order be quashed and set aside.

2. The factual matrix in brief are that, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. original plaintiffs had filed Special Civil Suit No.6/1982 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur for specific performance against the present respondents as defendants. However, the said suit was decided on 1.9.1989 and the specific performance and the another relief of refund of consideration were refused therein. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.22/1990 in District Court, Latur. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 expired and his heirs i.e. defendant No.1b to 1f were brought on record. Subsequently, the said appeal was allowed by judgment and order dated 16.2.1999 and the relief of specific performance was granted to the plaintiffs. The operative part of the order reads as follows:

“The suit is decreed. The defendant No.1b to 1e are directed to receive the amount of Rs.25,000/from the plaintiffs and thereafter defendant Nos.1b to 1e and defendant Nos.2 to 6 shall execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit land, in favour of the plaintiffs, within a period of two months. Otherwise, plaintiffs shall be entitled to get specific performance through the court of law. The plaintiffs to recover cost of the suit from the defendant Nos.1b to 1e and defendant Nos.2 to 6.”

3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, Second Appeal No.185/1999 was preferred by the original defendants before this Court, but the said Second Appeal was also dismissed on 11.3.2003.

4. Execution proceeding was filed in pursuance of the judgment, order and decree passed by the District Court, Latur by the plaintiffs and it is submitted that an error was detected in the operative part of the judgment and decree passed by the District Court, Latur while filing the said execution proceeding. It was revealed that instead of mentioning defendant Nos.’1b to 1f’, it was mentioned in the operative part as ‘defendant Nos.1b to 1e’ inadvertently, due to clerical mistake and the said decree should have been against defendant ‘Nos.1b to 1f’ and defendant ‘Nos.2 to 6 and not against defendant Nos.1b to 1e and defendant Nos.2 to 6’.

5. Hence, the plaintiffs i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein preferred M.C.A. No.82/2003 before the District Court, Latur under sections 152 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the omission of the name of ‘respondent No.1f Shobha w/o Ashokrao Deshmukh’ in the operative part of the decree is by way of accident of omission and, therefore, prayed that her name be included in the operative part of the decree and judgment paragraph No.3b, d & e. It is also submitted that the said error in the judgment is by way of accidental slip or omission and it was prayed that same be corrected by exercising power under Sections 152 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. The defendants/ respondents opposed the said application by filing their say and raised various contentions, contending that the decree passed by District Court, Latur was merged in the judgment passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.185/1999, dated 11.3.2003 and also contending that there is bar of provisions of law of limitation to the said application and District Court, Latur has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the said application.

7. Considering the rival submissions, the learned District Judge, Latur passed an order on the said M.C.A. No.82/2003 on 31.5.2004 and thereby allowed the said application and directed that judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.22/1990 be corrected by substituting ‘defendant Nos.1b to 1f’ in place of ‘defendant Nos.1b to 1e’ in paragraph No.3(b), (c), (d) and 3 of judgment