The main legal point established in the judgment is that a wrong judgment cannot be corrected by resorting to the provisions contained in S.152, C.P.C., and the proper remedy for an aggrieved party is to file a review or an appeal against the judgment and decree.

1. This Civil Revision Petition concerns a question of correction of a judgment and decree. Two sets of defendants against whom a decree was passed in O. S.34 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottayam, filed applications for correcting the judgment and decree passed against them. The court below declined to correct the judgment and decree. Hence this Civil Revision Petition.

2. By filing O. S.34 of 1981, the plaintiff, a Bank, prayed for recovery of a very large amount from the defendants. The suit claim was based on loans advanced by the Bank under various transactions Defendant No.1 in the suit was a firm. The firm was constituted by one Annamma and the 3rd defendant (the revision petitioners before me are the children of Annamma). The suit was instituted after the death of Annamma against the firm and the surviving partner of the firm, namely, the 3rd defendant, and the children of Annamma. After considering the evidence in the case and the contentions raised by the defendants the trial court passed a decree in the following terms:

"In the result, the plaintiff Is given a decree as against the defendants for realisation of Rs. 9,85,352.50 ps. with interest at the rate of 16 percent per annum from the respective due dales of each Bills as shown in schedule C attached to the plaint upto 16-1-1981 and Rs. 946/- being the notary charges, and with future interest from 16-1-1981 at the rate of 16 per cent per annum on Rs. 9,86.298.50 till date of realisation and with costs, from the defendants and charged on the plaint schedule mortgaged properties and by execution against defendants 2 and 4 to 9 only after exhausting all the remedies for realisation of the above said amount from defendants 1 and 3 and their assets and the mortgaged properties."

3. The revision petitioners submitted before me that the judgment is incorrect since the learned judge has not taken note of the provision contained in S.52 of the Civil Procedure Code. They contend that their liability to the plaintiff is only to the extent of the property inherited by them from their mother and that the court ought to have given a decision limiting their liability to the extent of the property, if any, they have inherited from Annamma. This is the main ground highlighted for seeking correction of the judgment and decree of the court. They wanted the judgment and decree to be amended so as to make it char that the revision petitioners are liable under the decree only to the extent of the property, if any, inherited by them from their mother.

4. Obviously, the decree is against the revision petitioners. Of course, in regard to the realisation of the decree amour f, some conditions advantageous to the revision petitioners have been added insofar as the decree provides that the revision petitioners and their properties can be proceeded against only as a last resort.

5. Now, counsel for the revision petitioners submits before me that since the decree has been passed not taking into account the provisions contained in S.52 of the Civil Procedure Code, it has to be treated as a decree pasted without jurisdiction and since the decree passed in the suit is without jurisdiction it can be corrected under S 152 of the Civil Procedure Code.

6. I cannot agree with the counsel for the revision petitioners that the decree in this case is a decree without jurisdiction At the worst, the revision petitioners can only say that the judgment has been rendered without taking notice of a particular provision in the Code of Civil Procedure. This omission, if at all it is an omission, will not render the judgment and the consequent decree totally void or without jurisdiction. In this circumstance, I feel that the remedy open to the revision petitioners, if they are aggrieved by the judgment and decree, is to file a review or an appeal against the judgment and decree. I feel it difficult to bold that a wrong judgment can be corrected by resorting to the provisions contained in S.152, C