The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary nature of the power of correction under S.152 of the Civil Procedure Code, with no time limit for its exercise, and the duty of the court to ensure that its records are true and represent the correct state of affairs.

1. The 6th defendant in O. S.474 of 1954 on the file of the Munsiff, Alathur is the appellant in S. A. 463 of 1966. The plaintiff in that suit is the petitioner in CRP. 90 of 1968. He is also the plaintiff in another suit, O. S.391 of 1951, on the file of the same court. CRP. 83 of 1968 is a revision petition filed by him from an order passed in O. S.391 of 1951. The Second Appeal is from an order passed by the Munsiff adjourning the case for confirmation of the sale which was held in execution. The Revision Petitions relate to orders passed by him in the 2 suits amending the decrees in those cases.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal and the revision petitions are as follows: The plaint schedule properties in the 2 suits are identical and they belong to the plaintiff. On the date of the 2 suits they were outstanding on lease with the sub-tarwad of defendants 2 to 5 and 7. Defendants 3 to 5 and 7 are the children of the 2nd and 6th defendants, the 6th defendant being the husband of the 2nd defendant. During the pendency of the suits the 2nd defendant died. The 2 suits are for recovery of rent due in respect of the plaint properties for different periods. While O. S.391 of 1951 is for recovery of rent for the year 1126 M. E., O. S.474 of 1954 is for recovery of rent for the years 1129 and 1130 M. E. The 6th defendant was impleaded in the suits on the allegation that he was in possession of the properties on behalf of his wife and children. He contended that he was in possession of the properties as a sub lessee of the 2nd defendant. That contention was found against and a decree was passed in O. S.391 of 1951 directing the defendants to pay on or before 15 21963 from and out of the sub-tarwad properties of defendants 3 to 5 and 7 an amount of Rs. 347-81 to the plaintiff. In O. S.474 of 1954 a decree for the arrears of rent claimed in that suit was passed against all the defendants in the suit.

3. In O. S.391 of 1951 when the plaintiff applied for execution the 6th defendant objected on the ground that he was not in any manner liable for the decree amount. His objection was dismissed on 17 81965 with the observation that his remedy was to get the decree amended. In execution the plaintiff attached the crops standing on the properties. Then the 6th defendant on behalf of defendants 3 to 5 and 7 deposited the decree amount. Thereafter he filed a claim petition. That was dismissed. Appeals filed by him from that order to the District Court, Palghat, and this Court were also dismissed. On 15-9-1965 he filed an application for amendment of the decree in O. S.391 of 1951. As the decree stood he was also liable for the decree amount in that case. According to him the decree was not in conformity with the judgment which had made it clear that he was not liable for the arrears of rent claimed in the suit and therefore the decree deserved to be amended excluding his liability for the amount decreed. The learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff submitted when the Second Appeal and the Revision Petitions were heard that the Munsiff passed an order on 15 111965 allowing the plaintiff to withdraw from court the amount deposited by the 6th defendant in O. S.391 of 1951, that pursuant to that order the plaintiff withdrew that amount from court and that thereafter satisfaction of the decree was recorded. After recording satisfaction of the decree the Munsiff proceeded with the application for amendment of the decree and on 17101967 allowed it. It is from that order that CRP. 83 of 1968 has been filed by the plaintiff.

4. In O. S.474 of 1954 also when the plaintiff applied for execution the 6th defendant objected on the ground that he was not liable for the decree amount. The Court dismissed his objections on 17-8-1965 stating that he was at liberty to apply for amendment of the decree. On 28-8-1965 the 6th defendant [applied in O. S.474 of 1954 for amendent of the decree. On 19-10-1965 he also applied for stay of e