D. Sreedevi, J.

Petitioners in all the above cases filed the above revision petitions against the orders passed by the Court below dismissing the applications to correct the mistake crept in the judgment and decree passed by the Court below. Petitioners filed the applications under S.152 CPC. The Court below dismissed the application in view of the decision reported in Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. (1999 (2) KLT SN 2/). Aggrieved by the said orders the petitioners have filed the above revision petitions.

2. Admittedly, the petitioners in the above petitions have availed of agricultural loan agreeing to repay the same with 11.5% interest. As they have committed default in paying the amount, the respondent filed suits against the petitioners for realisation of the amount claiming 1/.25% interest per annum compounded quarterly. As the petitioners remained ex-parte the Court decreed the suits in terms of the plaint. From the judgment it is seen that the Court has not applied its mind regarding the rate of interest claimed in the petition. The respondent cannot realise more than the contract rate of interest especially when it is an agricultural loan. Therefore, the rate of interest claimed in the suit is not legally due to the plaintiff. Simply because the petitioners have not contested, the Court cannot award more interest than the contract rate of interest.

3. It is submitted that S.152 CPC cannot be invoked in this case to correct the judgment and decree because the mistake crept in is not a clerical error or accidental omission as held by the Apex Court in Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P.,1999 (2) KLT (SN) 27. In that case, what is the Apex Court has stated is, that

"the omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of S.152, for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file appeal or review application. Il applies that the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, how erroneous that may be".

Relying on this decision, the Court below dismissed the application. But, as per the contract between the parties, the defendant is liable to pay only the contract rate of interest. But the plaintiff claimed 1/.25% interest per annum compounded quarterly. Simply because the defendant did not contest the suit, the Court without looking into the contract, mechanically passed a decree allowing the plaintiff to realise more interest than what is legally due. The Apex Court held that S.152 cannot be invoked to correct the errors, if it goes to the merit of the case. But, so far as this case is concerned, the correction of the rate of "interest" does not go to the root of the case. That will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff.1 here fore, that decision cannot be applied to help the plaintiff in this case.

4. This Court m Syndicate Chit Funds Ltd v. Narayanan Nair, 1988 (1) KLT 825, held that

"the object of the Section is to preserve substantial justice from being submerged in the bog of technical hurdles. It enables the Court to char o or vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. It helps to minim litigation and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is not merely the power vested in Court, but it casts a duty on the Court, that such amendments must be made in order to give effect to the true meaning and intention of the judgment. It is based on the principle that the act of the Court shall not prejudice any party. That is precisely the reason for empowering the Court to make such corrections even without an application from any party aggrieved. The words "either on its own motion" reflect the legislative concern to remand the court of its duty to do the needful when a situation warrants it, even if there is no application from any pc. -on to make such corrections".

The Court also held, that

"such power must be exercised very liberally whenever such amendments become necessary to promote the cause of justice and to s