V. G. OAK, J. : This Civil Revision by a defendant arises out of a proceeding for amendment of a decree under Sections 151, 152 and 153, C.P.C.

2. Wahid Raza and others brought a suit against Durga Singh defendant for recovery of possession over certain plots and damages. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif of Moradabad, but was decreed in appeal by the Additional Civil Judge of Moradabad. A Second Appeal by Durga Singh defendant was summarily dismissed by this Court under O. XLI, R. 11, C.P.C.

3. In the plaint the land in dispute was described as two plots situate in village Noorpur. According to the plaintiffs, that description was

incorrect, in fact the plots lie in another village Pandit Nagla. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed the application under Ss. 151, 152 and 153, C.P.C. before the Additional Civil Judge of Moradabad for amendment of the decree. That application was opposed by Durga Singh defendant. But the learned Additional Civil judge overruled Durga Singh's objection, and allowed amendment of the plaint and the decree by his order dated 7-1-1961. This Civil Revision by Durga Singh defendant is directed against that order dated 7-1-1961, allowing amendment.

4. Mr. Krishna Sahai, appearing for the applicant, urged two points before us. Firstly, he contended that the alleged mistake was neither the clerical mistake nor an arithmetical mistake. The alleged mistake could not be corrected by an application under Sections 151, 152 and 153, C.P.C. Secondly, it was urged that an applications for amendment ought to have been filed before the High Court, which dismissed the Second Appeal and finally disposed of the case.

5. In Batuk Prasad v. Ambika Prasad, AIR 1932 Pat 238. It was held that, if an appeal is summarily dismissed under O. XLI, R. 11, C.P.C. the original decree of the lower Court is neither varied nor reversed but is left untouched. Therefore, it is the original Court and not the appellate Court which can amend the decree to make it in conformity with the judgment.

6. The same view was taken by Chagla, C.J., in Hussain Sab v. Sitaram Vighneshwar, AIR 1953 Bom 122. It was held that, if an appeal has been summarily dismissed under O. XLI, R. 11, C.P.C., an application for amendment of the decree should be made not to the appellate Court but to the court which passed the substantive decree.

7. In Chinta Mani v. Debi Prasad, AIR 1934, All 971 it was held by Bennet, J. that Sec. 152 C.P.C. deals with the special case of correction on clerical and arithmetical mistakes. The words"as any time" have special significance in S. 152. Those words provide for a case where the decree of the Court below has merged in the decree of the appellate Court. That Section gives the lower Court power even in such a case to make an amendment if the amendment is merely of a clerical or arithmetical mistake, in that case the valuation, of the suit was Rs. 6,000. Percentage admissible was Rs. 270, but the decree contained Rs. 6/4A only. Amendment was, therefore, allowed. It will be noticed that in that case the Court was dealing with a mistake, which was obviously an arithmetical error. In the present case the question raised by the plaintiffs in the amendment application was that the plots in dispute lay in village Pandit Nagia and not in village Noorpur. Obviously, that was not an arithmetical mistake. It is doubtful whether the alleged mistake can be described as a clerical mistake.

8. in Asma Bibi v. Ahmad Husain, ILR 30 All 290, it was held that, dismissal of an appeal, under Section 551, C.P.C. is a decree and supersedes the decree of the Court below. The Court which has taken action under Section 551 is the only Court which has jurisdiction to amend the decree under S. 206 of the Code. We find that the language of S. 551 of the old C.P.C. is similar to the language of O. XLI, R. 11 of the present C.P.C. This decision is, therefore, an authority as regards the true effect of dismissal of an appeal under O. XLI, R. 11, C.