Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.

1. Title (Partition) Suit 23 of 1999 was filed by one Md. Bajlu Mian (Plaintiff) Predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 1 to 8 in the instant revision petition against the present petitioners as defendants along with the respondents Nos. 9 to 13. In the said suit, the Plaintiff, predecessor in interest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 asked for partition of the joint property and also for passing a decree allocating him 23.44% share of the joint property. The aforesaid suit was contested by the present petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 who were proforma defendant Nos. 10 and 11 in the suit and no other defendant including the petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 contested the suit. On contest the suit was decreed with a preliminary decree dated 11.07.2001. As the parties in the suit would not affect partition by themselves, in terms of the preliminary decree, the plaintiff Md. Bajlu Mian filed a petition for passing final decree and consequent thereto, the trial Court passed final decree on 27.11.2004 taking into consideration the report of the Survey Commissioner, namely, Tushar Kanti Dasgupta and in the said final decree it is mentioned that the report of the Survey Commissioner would be a part of the decree. The decree of the trial Court was never challenged by the judgment debtors-petitioners herein in any higher forum. Thus, the decree became final. For ready reference it would be proper on our part to reproduce the final decree passed by the learned trial Court, which is as follows:--

The suit coming on 23rd day of August, 2004 for final disposal before Shri B. Majumdar, Civil Judge (Sr. Division), West Tripura, Agartala in presence of Shri Debabrata Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the plaintiff and of Shri D.R. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the Defendants. This Court doth order:--

Final decree is hereby passed in terms of the report of the survey commissioner dt. 8.1.2004 and 24.7.2004 along with map and field book etc. which shall form a part of the decree.

And it is decree that property specified in the schedule hereunto annexed be allotted as per terms of the preliminary decree and according to the report of the Survey Commissioner.

Dated, the...day of November, 2004 A.D.

The plaintiff-decree holder (since deceased) preferred a petition before the Executing Court for execution of the final decree and the said petition was numbered as Title Execution Case No. 16/2005 and ultimately the Court which passed the decree as executing Court issued notice to the judgment debtors including the petitioners in the instant revision petition who were defendants in the suit. Some of the judgment debtors, defendants in the suit including the present petitioners filed an objection under Section 47 of the CPC and ultimately, the executing Court rejected the objection raised by them and consequent thereto dismissed the objection under Section 47 of the CPC.

2. When the execution case was pending the present petitioners filed an application before the learned executing Court, i.e. the Civil Judge, Sr. Div. under Section 152 of the CPC for amending the final decree and the said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 38 of 2008. On hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties the learned executing Court passed an order on 22.07.2008 which is as follows:--

Only clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgment, decrees and orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may be corrected by the Court as per Provision of 152 of the Code and as per decisions the power to rectify decree is not a power to give second thought over the matter. Power under Section 152 is confined to something initially intended by the Court but left out or added against such intention (AIR 2001 SC 1084).

Orders dated 11.07.2001, 25.08.2003 and 23.08.2004 find total reflection in the final decree passed on 27th November, 2004 and there is nothing to hold that anything was left out in the said decree so as to term the same as '