Nagendra Rai, J.

1. The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.1.2003, passed by the Additional District Judge-III, Siwan, in Title Appeal No. 103 of 1983, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Secs. 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is to incorporate reliefs, prayed for in the suit, in the judgment and decree, which have been omitted by the appellate Court while allowing the appeal after setting aside the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court.

2. The factual matrix necessary for disposal of the present matter are that the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 81 of 1972 in the Court of the 2nd Munsif, Siwan, against the defendant-opposite parties under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code for declaration that the disputed land is a public land and the defendants have no right and title over the same and they have no right and title to construct wall, Palani etc. over the suit land and also for delivery of possession after removal of the illegal structure of the defendant-opposite parties from the suit land.

3. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred Title appeal No. 103 of 1983, which was allowed on 18.12.1987 and the operative part of the judgment is that the appeal succeeds and the order of the Court below is hereby set aside. In terms of the aforesaid judgment, a decree was prepared and it also incorporated the same terms.

4. The plaintiff-petitioner levied execution and prayed for delivery of possession in terms of the prayer made in the plaint, which was numbered as Execution Case No. 10 of 1988. The defendant-opposite parties raised objection to the executability of the decree by filing an objection u/s. 47 of the Code, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 24 of 1988. The objection was allowed and the execution case was dismissed on the ground that there was no direction for giving delivery of possession. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Siwan, on the ground that no appeal was maintainable against the order passed u/s. 47 of the Code. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 1180 of 1993 in this Court, which was dismissed on 9.4.1997 with observation that the order would not stand in way of the petitioner to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

5. Thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner under Secs. 151, 152 and 153 of the Code for the amendment of the judgment and decree, wherein a prayer was made that though the appeal has been allowed but there is a clerical mistake in the judgment and decree as the reliefs, as prayed for in the plaint for delivery of possession etc., have not been incorporated in the judgment and decree and such judgment and decree do not represent the correct state of affairs and it is a fit case where the clerical mistake due to omission of the aforesaid facts may be corrected. The Court below has rejected the said prayer by the impugned order on the ground that the amendment sought for by the petitioner is not an accidental slip or omission and for allowing the amendment a fresh finding is required to be given by the Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the appellate Court has set aside the dismissal of the suit and allowed the appeal, it means that all the reliefs prayed for in the plaint have been allowed and the appellate Court should have incorporated the said facts in the judgment and decree and for its omission, the plaintiff-petitioner should not suffer.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submitted that there was no direction for delivery of possession in the judgment and decree and such mistake cannot be rectified by taking recourse to the provisions contained in Secs. 151, 152 and 153 of the Code.

8. The Courts are meant for administration of justice and as such it is inherent in their const