The central legal point established in the judgment is the liberal application of S.152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allowing for the correction of errors arising from omissions in judgments and decrees to preserve substantial justice and minimize litigation.

1. M/s. Syndicate Chit Fund Limited (Plaintiff) which got a money decree, but has no practical use of it since the plaintiff company is precluded from realising the amount decreed on account of want of necessary operative words in the judgment. The petition for amending the judgment was dismissed and hence this revision petition.

2. The plaintiff company filed a suit for realisation of Rs. 1,360/- based on Ext. Al which is a bond executed by one Krishnan and two sureties (defendants 1 and 2) for repayment of the defaulted instalments of a Kuri. Krishnan died and his legal representatives were made defendants in the suit. The trial court found that the plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed in the suit. The court allowed the plaintiff to proceed against the property left behind by the said Krishnan and also against the assets of defendants 1 and 2. The operative portion of the judgment is worded thus: "In the result the suit is decreed as indicated above with costs of the plaintiff". A decree was prepared in line with the said judgment. The plaintiff found it difficult to execute the said decree as it does not allow him to realise the plaint amount from the defendants. It is not necessary now to consider whether the plaintiffs are entitled to realise the amount even on the strength of the words now embodied in the judgment and decree.

3. As the judgment and the decree did not contain words necessary to allow the plaintiff to realise the plaint amount with costs and interests, from the defendants and properties mentioned above, the plaintiff filed an interlocutory application, under S.152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') before the trial court for amendment of the judgment. The short order by which the lower court dismissed the aforesaid interlocutory application reads thus:

"The prayer in this application is to amend the decree and judgment by incorporating the fact that the petitioner has been allowed to realise the plaint amount and interest from the defendants. Bat in the judgment there is no mention about the recovery of plaint amount from (be defendants. Under S.152 clerical or arithmetical errors or mistakes alone can be rectified. I find that the proposed amendment will not come within the purview of S.152 CPC. Hence this application is dismissed without costs".

4. Learned Munsiff was obviously under an erroneous impression that S.152 of the Code permits only correction of clerical or arithmetical errors in judgments or decrees. Of course, such mistakes are also liable to be corrected by virtue of the powers under that Section. But the provision permits correction of something more than that. The said Section is extracted below:

"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".

Four categories are mentioned in the Section which call for invocation of powers therein. (1) Clerical mistakes; (2) arithmetical mistakes; (3) errors arising from accidental slips; (4) errors arising from accidental omissions. The provision can be invoked if any one of them exists. It cannot be understood that if there is no clerical or arithmetical mistake, the judgment is not liable to be amended for any reason whatsoever. The object of the Section is to preserve substantial justice from being submerged in the bog of technical hurdles. It enables the court to change or vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. It helps to minimise 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 cou