A court has the power to rectify a mistake in a decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if the mistake was caused by the negligence of the party seeking the amendment.

1. The petitioner filed O.S.No. 52 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem. The suit was decreed as prayed for on 16. 1984, as the defendants remained ex parte. At the time of filing the petition for final decree, it was found out that by mistake it was prayed in the plaint that preliminary and final decree should be passed, though the suit is only for recovery of money. So, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 115 of 1988 under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to rectify the mistake by amending the decree, as the suit is only for recovery of money. The said petition was dismissed by the court below in its order dated 110. 1990. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the”above revision.

2. In the plaint filed in the above suit, the plaintiff has prayed as follows:-

“Therefore, the plaintiff humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a decree and judgment against the defendant for the suit claim with subsequent interest at contract rate and costs and make suitable provisions for the passing of a final decree if need be, directing the defendants to pay the amount within a stipulated time, and in case if they fail to make payment to make provision for the sale of the hypothecated property, in case the sale proceeds are not sufficient to meet the decree amount, to pass a personal decree against the defendants 2 to 6 for the balance of amount realisable, grant costs of suit and grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice”. The prayer proceeds on the basis that as if the suit is on a mortgage. Order 34, of the Code deals with mortgage suits. Admittedly, in the present case, no immovable property is involved. The hypothecation deed filed along with the plaint is only with respect to movable properties. Even the court-fee is paid only under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act and not under Section 33 of the Act, which relates to mortgage suits. A reading of the plaint would show that the claim of the plaintiff is only on the loan amount and not to exercise any right on the alleged mortgaged properties. Unfortunately, in the prayer, it is prayed to pass a preliminary and final decree as if the plaintiff wants to sell the hypothecated properties. Even assuming that the plaintiff wants to exercise rights in the hypothecation deed, admittedly, such properties are movable an it cannot be construed that the suit filed is under Order 34 of the Code. Moreover, even in the plaint itself it is specifically stated that the first defendant is not carrying on any activity and trade and the plaintiffs officials did not find the stock-in-trade to cover the security offered for the loan. So, it is very clear that the suit is not on the basis of hypothecation and it is only on the basis that the defendants failed to repay the money due to the plaintiff. That is why the court-fee was also paid under Section 22 of the said Act. On the basis of the above, now we have to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to have the mistake corrected so as to enable the plaintiff to recover the money from the defendant.

3. It is not in dispute that the court below has found that the amount claimed by the plaintiff is due from the defendants and that finding has become final. In the present case, there being no ambiguity as to the subject matter of the suit, the court should have exercised its jurisdiction by allowing necessary amendments. By doing so, the defendants would not in any way be prejudiced or would not suffer any injury. But, on the other hand, the plaintiff will have to suffer great prejudice and injury. It is also settled where justa falsa-demonstratio in regard to the subject matter of the litigation and it has not lead to any confusion or mistake in the minds of the other party and has not affected the merits of the decision, Section 152 of the Code can certainly be invoked.

4. If any authority