The High Court has the power under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code to correct errors in its judgments arising from accidental slips or omissions.

ORDER :- This is an application under S. 152 of the Civil P. C. The applicants state that the word "case" occurring in the last sentence of the judgment of this Court dated July 26, 1976, was due to an error arising therein from an accidental slip or omission used for the words "issue of eviction" and pray that the error be corrected accordingly.

2. The applicants/plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondent/defendant in the Civil Court for the eviction of the defendant from a dwelling house and also for recovery of arrears of rent, for mesne profits, for an injunction restraining the defendant from carrying on some additional construction and for some other reliefs. The defendant raised before the Civil Court the preliminary objection that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the question of eviction. This objection was overruled by the Civil Court. The defendant came before me in revision (C. R. A. 26/76). The point raised by the defendant in the said revision application was that "the finding of the lower Court that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted as far as the prayer for eviction, is totally wrong". This was admittedly the only point before me in the said revision application which culminated in the judgment which the plaintiffs seek to get corrected.

3. It is contended by Dr. Lobo, learned advocate for the plaintiffs that since the only question before this Court in the said revision application was the question as to whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the question of eviction, this Court ought not to have used the word "case" in the order in question and that the use of the word "case" was being taken advantage of by the defendant in the lower Courts and was likely to be taken advantage also in future to debar the Civil Courts from hearing the entire suit. It is urged before me that the suit is a composite suit for various reliefs and that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant all the other reliefs except the relief of eviction. It is stated that the word "case" was used by the Court to mean the "question of eviction" and was used by the Court on account of an error arising from an accidental slip or omission.

4. Opposing the application Shri Khandeparkar states that the suit before the Civil Court was a suit for eviction and that the other reliefs were consequential. He argues that since the Civil Court is barred from deciding the question of eviction, the Civil Court is totally barred from hearing the case. He therefore contends that the word "case" used in the said judgment of 26-7-1976 was correctly used. In any event, Shri Khandeparkar states, the word cannot be corrected because this Court has no power to correct it under S. 152 of the Civil P. C.

5. I am unable to agree with Shri Khandeparkar on the first contention. In view of his own application for revision the only question agitated before me in that application was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction as far as the prayer for eviction was concerned. Unquestionably the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the other reliefs prayed for in the suit. It is difficult to conceive that the reliefs of recovery of arrears of rent, of recovery of mesne profits, of an injunction restraining the defendant from carrying on some additional construction and other such reliefs, are consequential to the granting the relief of eviction. This suit is a composite suit and even if the relief of eviction could not be granted the other reliefs could be granted by the Civil Court. This point was never raised before me in

C. R. A. 26/76 and it does not appear to have been raised before the trial Court. Undoubtedly the trial Court has jurisdiction to decide the other issues involved and to grant some of those reliefs.

6. On the question that this Court has no jurisdiction to make the correction under S. 152, C. P. C. Shri Khandeparkar relies on Master Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1047. There the