A Court can correct an accidental omission in its judgment under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and can pass a decree for mesne profits payable subsequently to the suit without an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure if, in the circumstances of the case, an enquiry is unnecessary.

1. This is an application by the plaintiffs for granting them appropriate relief with respect to their claim for compensation for future use and occupation of the house in question, from the date of filing of the suit till they are given possession of their share after final decree for partition.

2. In support of the application, it was urged by the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff-petitioners, that when this Court accepted the agreement between the parties, and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for money at the rate of Rs. 200.00 a month, for three years prior to the institution of the suit, this Court inadvertently omitted to mention further in its judgment that the plaintiffs were also entitled to compensation at the same rate from the date of the institution of the suit until Khas possession Is delivered to them after partition.

3. The application, however, was opposed by Mr. S. C. Sinha, appearing for the defendants opposite party, and it was urged by him that this application was not maintainable because such a direction cannot now be given unless an application for a review of the judgment of the first appeal was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners. It was also contended that if this application Is allowed, then the defendants will have to file another appeal against the order passed on the present application, as the defendants have already filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the original Judgment of the first appeal.

4. In the suit in question, the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs have been mentioned by us in our original Judgment dated the 13th May, 1950. The relief claimed in Clause (b) was with respect to compensation upto the date of institution of the suit on the 11th September, 1951. In Clause (c) the plaintiffs had prayed for compensation for future use and occupation of the plaintiffs share in the house in question, from the date of filing of the suit until possession was given to the plaintiffs. Upon the agreement alleged by the parties, we held as follows:

"After a review of the evidence adduced under issue No. 4, I will hold that the plaintiffs have been able to prove satisfactorily that there was an agreement between the plaintiffs ancestor and Ramsahai Sah, brother of defendants 1 and 2, to pay compensation to the plaintiffs at Rs. 200 per month for the use and occupation of the plaintiffs half share of the house (minus the portion occupied by Sri Sah Shib Charan Sen,)"

Upon this finding, at page 17 of our judgment we held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per month, for three years prior to the institution of the suit. It is obvious that in not giving the plaintiffs any relief in connection with Clause (c) of the reliefs, mentioned above, we made an inadvertent omission, although we accepted the agreement puf forward by the plaintiffs. There can be no doubt that the judgment in the first appeal dated the 13th May, 1960, as it stands, does not represent the intention of the Court at the time of making it. The whole tenor of the judgment shows that this particular relief mentioned in Clause (c) was in our mind, inasmuch as we quoted the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in extenso, It is clear therefore, that by an accidental error we made no reference to Clause (c) of the reliefs claimed; but as we accepted the agreement alleged by the plaintiffs, it cannot be said that we rejected, even inferentially, the relief claimed in Clause (c) mentioned above.

5. In our opinion, the accidental omission made in the judgment of the first appeal in question falls within the purview of Sec.152 of the Code of Civil Proce- dure and it is the duty of this Court to correct the mistake made by it. The omission to make an order contemplated by Order 20 Rule 12(1)(c) of the Code of: Civil Procedure was an accidental slip and it ought to be corrected by this Court. Reference may be made to a decision of the