JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., far revision of an order of the Additional Civil Judge of Sitapur refusing to amend a judgment and decree under Section 152, Civil P.C. The plaintiff-applicant brought a suit for sale of certain property mortgaged by one Chandrika Singh to his uncle, after the latter's death, and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree the property was put to sale and purchased by the applicant himself. Subsequently he brought a suit for possession of the property against the opposite parties on the ground that they were resisting him in obtaining actual possession, opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 claiming as usufructuary mortgagees of the property and opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 giving themselves out as thekadars of a portion of the property. In this suit the applicant also claimed mesne profits from 20th December 1929, the date of sale up to the date of delivery of possession but fixed no amount of such profits. His pleader made an oral statement requesting the Court to determine the amount of mesne profits in the execution department and this prayer was accepted by the Court. The suit was decreed for possession of the land in suit on 30th March 1932, but nothing was said either in the judgment or in the decree as to mesne profits. On 3rd September 1934, the plaintiff decree-holder applied to the Court to add in the judgment and decree words to the following effect:

The amount of mesne profits will be determined on a separate application in the execution department.

2. This application was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge on the ground that the amendment applied for could not be made under Section 152, Civil P.C. and this order of dismissal is the subject of this application. We are of opinion that this application must be allowed and that Section 152, Civil P.C., is wide enough to cover the present case which is undoubtedly a case of accidental omission of an order as to mesne profits in the judgment. On 30th March 1932, the date on which judgment was pronounced the Court recorded the following proceedings:

The plaintiff's pleader requests that the inquiry about mesne profits may be left to be determined in the execution proceedings. I permit him to do so.

3. This was followed by the hearing of arguments and the pronouncement of the judgment. This shows that the Court did really intend to award mesne profits to the plaintiff though at the time of writing the judgment it overlooked the question of mesne profits. It may also be mentioned that the suit was not contested by the defendants and in his judgment the learned civil Judge after referring to the documentary evidence filed by the plain tiff said:

All these documents prove the plaintiff's title to the land in suit and also the fact that he has obtained formal delivery of possession. Plaintiff's witness No. 2 (plaintiff) proves that defendants 1 to 4 prevent him from taking possession. The plaintiff's case is thus established.

4. In these circumstances we do not think any valid defence could be urged to the plaintiff's claim for mesne profits or that the learned civil Judge could have really intended to refuse the relief for mesne profits. In Ram Singh v. Sant Singh AIR 1930 Lah 210 certain property had been sold in execution of a decree and possession of the property was given to the auction-purchaser. One Ram Singh brought an objection under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C., but it was dismissed. Thereupon he instituted a suit under Order 21, Rule 103, for a declaration of his title, to the property and also for possession thereof. The suit was decreed but by inadvertence the judgment omitted to mention that it was decreed for possession of the property also. Subsequently Ram Singh tried to obtain possession by execution of his decree but was met by an objection that the decree did not award possession to him. He thereupon brought an application for amendment of the judgment under Section 152, Civil P.C