JUDGMENT

King, J. - This is an application in revision against an order passed by the District Judge to the effect that a mortgage decree and certain connected documents be amended. The applicant before us mortgaged certain zamindari property in a village called "Nawadiya Zamania Nagla," but by an accidental slip the property was described in the mortgage deed as being situated in the village "Nagla Zamania Nawadiya." The words are the same, but the order has been inverted by an accidental slip. It is admitted that there is no village bearing the latter name or at least that there is no village of that name in which the mortgagor has or ever had any interest. There was never any doubt as to the identity of the mortgaged property.

2. The mortgagee brought a suit upon the basis of the mortgage, obtained a preliminary decree, which was upheld by the appellate Court, obtained a final decree and brought the property to sale. The mortgagee himself purchased the property at the auction sale, obtained a sale certificate and obtained formal delivery of possession. Throughout all these proceedings the property was described erroneously as being situated in "Nagla Zamania Nawadiya" in accordance with the wording of the mortgage deed. It was not until the mortgagee, as auction purchaser applied to the Revenue Court to have his name mutated as purchaser of the share that the mistake came to light. The Revenue Court refused the application for mutation on the ground that the auction purchaser, according to the sale certificate, had not purchased the property in Nawadiya Zamania Nagla.

3. The mortgagee then applied to the trial Judge asking him u/s 152 to amend the decree. The Subordinate Judge rejected the application on the ground that his decree had become merged in that of the District Judge and he had no jurisdiction to amend the decree. The mortgagee then applied to the District Judge for amendment of the decree and the connected proceedings, but the District Judge also held that he had no jurisdiction to decide the application as the applicant should have appealed from the order of the Subordinate Judge. The mortgagee then went up to the High Court in revision. A Bench of this Court decided that the District Judge had jurisdiction to hear and decide the application and returned the application to him for disposal. The District Judge having taken evidence to satisfy himself that there was, in fact, a misdescription of the property, granted the application for amendment.

4. It has been argued before us, firstly, that the Court below purports to take action u/s 152, Civil P.C. and that that section applies only to mistakes made by the Court or by its ministerial officers and not to mistakes made by the parties to the suit. The language of that section is, in our opinion, wide enough to cover the correction of mistakes made by the parties themselves. The applicant has relied upon a decision of this Court : L. Ram Chander Sarup v. Mazhar Husain [1919] 51 I.C. 55. In the judgment of that case their Lordships remarked:

Section 152 deals with amendments of clerical errors in orders or decrees of the Court itself which are drawn up not properly representing what the Court decides.

5. In our opinion, this decision can be distinguished upon the facts. The correction, which the applicant in that case desired, was not the correction of a mere misdescription of property, but a very substantial, amendment. The applicant had, as a creditor, filed a claim for Rs. 3,418, against the insolvent and had supported his claim by an affidavit. His claim was allowed to that extent. About two years later, he applied to the insolvency Court stating that the real amount of his debt was about Rs. 6,000 and by mistake he had stated that it was only Rs. 3,418. The insolvency Court decided that there had been no mistake and that the debt should remain entered in the schedule at the amount claimed by the applicant himself. Subsequently the applicant made a second applicatio