Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Heard on admission. These civil revisions (Civil Revision Nos. 09/2014, 10/2014 & 11/2014) were heard together and disposed of by this common order, as common question of fact & law are involved.

2. These civil revisions are filed against the order dated 27th of November, 2013 passed by 6th Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur, rejecting the application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') filed by the plaintiff/decree holder stating inter alia that there is typographical/clerical error in Para-19(b) of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, plaintiff/decree holder is entitled interest @ 18% per annum, whereas, the operative portion records that the plaintiff is entitled interest @ 1.5% per annum.

3. The trial Court, which had passed the decree heard the application and after considering the same, clearly recorded a finding that the issue No. 3 has been answered and relief in part has been granted to the plaintiff, therefore, no typographical/clerical error in the operative portion of the judgment and decree.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the papers available with the memo of civil revisions.

5. In order to decide these civil revisions, it will be useful to take note of Section 152 of CPC, which reads as under:--

152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders.--Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.

6. Section 152 of CPC provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the same becomes final subject to any further avenues of remedies provided in respect of the same and the very Court or the tribunal cannot, on mere change of view, is not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed except by means of review, if statutorily provided specifically therefor and subject to the conditions or limitations provided therein.

7. In case of State of Punjab Vs. Darshan Singh AIR 2003 SC 4179, the Supreme Court held as under:

11.......The powers under Section 152 of the Code are neither to be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or even said to clothe the Court concerned under the guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered, in its entirety or any portion or part of it. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the Court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 as if it is looking into it for the first time, for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party if at all is to file appeal or revision before the higher forum or review application before the very forum, subject to the limitations in respect of such review. It implies that the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the Courts below have been liberally construing and applying the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of Code even after passing of effective orders in the lis pending before them. No Court can, under the cover of the aforesaid Sections, modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Dwaraka Das v.