JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - This is a petition for revision of an order dismissing an application under Sections 152 and 151, Civil P.C., for amendment of certain alleged clerical and arithmetical mistakes in the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff in 1922 on foot of a mortgage.

2. For the respondents two preliminary objections are raised. Firstly, it is contended that this petition for revision had not been properly instituted as Sobhi Charan Singh, Advocate, who filed the petition as the mukhtar khas of the petitioner had not been authorized in the mukhtarnama to institute a petition for revision. I have referred to the mukhtarnama which is on the record and find that it authorized the mukhtar to prefer an appeal to this Court. Technically speaking the power to prefer a revision is not specifically given in the mukhtarnama but, in my opinion, the power to prefer an appeal to this Court must be liberally interpreted and it must be held that Sodhi Charan Singh was competent to lodge a petition for revision. I, therefore, overrule this objection.

3. Secondly, it is objected that an application for correction of the alleged clerical and arithmetical mistakes was presented by the petitioner on 18th November 1924, and after notice to the respondent was dismissed on the merits on 11th December 1924. In these circumstances it is contended that another application for substantially the same relief is not competent. I have heard the learned Counsel for both parties in respect of the alleged arithmetical mistakes which are stated to have accidentally crept in the judgment and have also examined the application for amendment, dated 18th November 1924, above referred to. ID my opinion the two applications are substantially the same and in view of the decision of the previous application and the long delay in presenting the present application the lower Court was justified in dismissing it. As laid down in Langat Singh v. Janki Koer [1912] 39 Cal 265, a Court is competent to entertain successive applications for amendment of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or decrees and a decision on a prior application of this kind does not operate as res judicata in subsequent applications, but if an application for amendment has been heard and disposed of on the merits, the Court will not, except in exceptional circumstances, entertain a subsequent application for substantially the same relief. In my opinion no such exceptional circumstances are made out in this case.

4. I, therefore, hold that the order of the lower Court was correct and dismiss the petition for revision. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, how ever, I would leave the parties to bear their own costs in both the Courts.