A court has the power to amend its decree at any time, if there is a clerical or arithmetical mistake, or an error due to accidental slip or omission therein, even though the decree has been executed and satisfied, and even though an appeal against the decree is pending in the High Court.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This appeal is by defendants I to 10, who along with defendants 11 to 13--Respondents third party, were defendants first party, and is directed against the amended decree of May 30, 1957, by which the amount of cost, awarded to the appellants against the plaintiff-respondent, was reduced, from 1020/1/- to Rs. 795/1/-, that is, by Rs. 225.

2. The single question, for determination here, is, whether the amendment of the decree, asked for by the plaintiff, after it had been executed and satisfied by sale of his properties, and, alter an appeal against it was pending, should have been allowed by the court below?

3. In order to decide this question, it is necessary to know the material facts having bearing on it

4. A suit for partition was brought, by the plaintiff-respondent first party, against defendants first party, some of whom are appellants and others are respondents third party, and, defendants second party--respondents second party. It was dismissed on the 31st March 1955, with costs, to the defendants. The order portion of the said judgment is in these terms:

"That the suit be dismissed with costs and pleaders fee at Rs. 5/- per cent. Costs and pleaders fee to be paid by the plaintiff to the contesting defendants 1st party and defendants 2nd party."

A decree, in accordance with the said judgment, was drawn up on the 13th April, 1955, by which Rs. 1020/1/- was directed to be paid by the plaintiff to defendants first party, appellants, and, respondents third party. We are not here concerned with defendants second party, who are respondents second party.

5. The appellants and respondents third party, who were defendants first party, thereafter, on the 1st June, 1955, executed their decree for cost for Rs. 1020-1-0. In the execution after service of the notice under Order 21 Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff-respondent first party, who was judgment-debtor, filed an objection under Sec. 47, Civil Procedure Code, on the 7th October, 1955. The objection of the plaintiff was rejected on the 23rd January, 1956.

6. It will appear from the order-sheet of the execution case, Exhibit P, wherein the order of January 23, 1956, is also to be found, that the objections, inter alia, taken by the plaintiff were (1) that the execution could not proceed unless the decree was amended, inasmuch as, it was not prepared in accordance with the judgment and the amount of cost payable by the plaintiff to the appellants and respondents third party decree-holders mentioned in the decree was incorrect and, (2) that an appeal against the decree under execution was pending in the High Court.

7. After the rejection of the objection of the plaintiff, his properties were sold on the 19th March, 1956, in satisfaction of the decree for costs, and, purchased by the appellants and respondents third party decree-holders themselves for Rs. 1088/2/-.

8. During the pendency of the said execution, the plaintiff, after rejection of his objections on the 23rd January, 1956, immediately about three months thereafter, on the 18th April, 1956, filed an application for amendment of the decree under execution, before the confirmation, of the sale, which had taken place earlier. During the pendency of the said application for amendment, the sale was confirmed on the 20th April, 1956, and, ultimately the execution was dismissed on full satisfaction on the 30th April 1956. The application of the plaintiff for amendment of the decree was, thereafter, allowed on the 30th May, 1957, and, the decree was amended, and, by the amended decree the appellants along with respondents third party, were allowed Rs. 795-1-0 as cost against the plaintiff-respondent first party, in lieu of Rs. 1020-1-0 as mentioned originally in the unamended decree.

9. The appellants have now presented the present appeal against the amended decree and challenged the amendment allowed by the Court below, not on facts, but purely on points of law.

10. It is conce