1. Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel and Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Mr. D.N. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of this revision petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.8.2002, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bongaigaon in Title Execution Case No. 1/02 by which the application filed under section 152, CPC read with section 151, CPC seeking correction of Dag No. as 963 instead of 960, was rejected.

3. Mrs. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, questioning the validity and legality of the impugned order, has vehemently argued that the correction by way of amendment sought for under section 152, CPC was a clerical mistake as the Dag No. 960 was shown inadvertently in the decree and the same ought to have been recorded as Dag No. 963.

4. In support of her submission as regards the clerical or arithmetical mistake she has drawn attention of the court to the definition of clerical' as well as 'arithmetical' mistake as it appears in Black's Law Dictionary (7th edn.) wherein the clerical and arithmetical mistake have defined as under : -

'Mistake' means some unin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document