S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the order dated 26 -10 -1994 passed by the learned Addi ­tional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad dismissing the revisionist's application No. 7 of 1994 -95 for correction of the judgment and decree dated 22 -3 -1994 under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act passed in appeal No. 39 of 1993 -94.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that during the pendency of the First Appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner an application under Sec ­tion 152 of C.P.C. was moved on behalf of the revisionist Smt. Bismillah and others with the prayer that in para 2 of the judg ­ment and order dated March 22, 1994, plot No. 329/66 area 5.50 -D in place of 329 area 6.50and 1l/4th in place of ll/8th has been wrongly typed and the same may be cor ­rected. The learned Additional Commis ­sioner has dismissed this application on October26, 1994. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist. None appeared on be ­half of the contesting O.P. despite due notice. For the revisionist it was contended that there was clerical and typing mistake in the judgment and order dated March 22, 1994 under Section 152, C.P.C. fully em ­powers the Court to correct such mistake but lower Appellate Court has illegally dismissed the aforesaid application on 1 -8 -1994 that the revisionist had been claim ­ing only 1/8th in the disputed property but the learned lower Appellate Court by means of its order dated 22 -3 -1994 granted a decree for 1/4th share as such this cleri ­cal/arithmetical, typing mistake can be corrected under Section 152 of C.P.C. by the learned lower Appellate Court that the disputed plot No. 329 is of an area of 6.50 acres, but it has been mentioned as having an area of 66.50 acres, by mistake which can be corrected by the learned lower Ap ­pellate Court.
(3.) I have carefully and closely con ­sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also gone through the relevant records on file. Having closely examined the records, I find that the learned Addi ­tional Commissioner has rightly dismissed the afore said application moved by the revisionist as by means of the aforesaid application, the revisionist has sought to get changed the order originally under section 152, C.P.C. but the aforesaid mis ­take with regard to share of the parties cannot be permitted to be changed under Section 152 of C.P.C.;