S.R.Das Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of an objection raised to an application for execution of a decree. The appellants before us were the heirs of the deceased judgment-debtor against whom a decree for recovery of money was passed. That decree was put into execution and the Execution Case was numbered 85 of 1953. The amount for which the execution proceedings were originally started was Rs. 3077-15 which included costs of the suit and costs of the certified copy of the decree. I should have mentioned that against the said original decree there had been an appeal to this Court which was dismissed. The present Execution Case was started after such dismissal. On the 16th July 1954, after the original application for execution was filed, a petition was presented to the Subordinate Judge, Asansol, by the decree holder for an amendment of the execution petition by including a prayer for Rs. 932/- as the added interest. In that petition it was stated that the original decree was amended on the 10th July, 1954, by the said court and in accordance with that order of amendment the execution petition should also be amended. It appears that on the 10th July, 1954, that is, after the appeal to this court against the original decree had been dismissed the decree-holder filed a petition before the lower court for amendment of the said decree of the allegation that in the decree that was drawn up interest was allowed up to the institution o the suit and no subsequent interest was mentioned in the said decree, although in the judgment interest was allowed at the rate of six per cent from the date of the loan up to the date of realisation. The lower court thereupon allowed the amendment asked for and by its order No. 35 dated the 10th July, 1954, the decree was amended by allowing interest at 6 per cent from the date of the institution of the suit to the date of the realisation in addition to the interest already allowed. It should be mentioned that in the decree as drawn up it was stated amongst others that the amount decreed was Rs. 2682-10, which, we are informed, includes interest up to the date of the institution of the suit, with interest thereon at the rate of nil per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the suit to the date of the realisation of the said sum. It is apparent from the wordings of the said decree that there was a clerical mistake which needed correction and that correction was made by the lower court by its order dated the 10th July, 1954. The appellant filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the present application for an amendment after execution petition. The present appeal has been filed to this Court. Against the said order there was an appeal to the District Judge and the appeal was also dismissed. The present appeal has been filed to this Court against the said order of the Additional District Judge of Burdwan.
(2.) Before us it is contended that the court which amended the decree had no jurisdiction to do so inasmuch as the original decree having been appealed from and a final order having been passed in the said appeal, the decree had merged in the appellate court's decree and the original court ceased to have any jurisdiction over it: That being so, the order of amendment made was also without jurisdiction.
(3.) On behalf of the respondent it was urged before us that the court had jurisdiction under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to correct a clerical or arithmetical mistake appearing in judgments, decrees or orders and such correction can be made at any time. The learned Advocate for the respondent contended before us that the court had under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure jurisdiction to make such corrections even though the original decree had been the subject-matter of an appeal and a final order had been passed in the said appeal. "In support of that proposition he cited two decisions of this Court, being the case of Ahidhar Ghosh v. Secretary of State, 36 Cal WN 665: (AIR 1933 Cal 335) (A), and the case of Kalidas Rakshit v. Saraswati Dassi, 46 Cal WN 982 at p. 984: (AIR 1943 Cal 1 at p. 3) (B). He also relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in the case of Chintra Mani v. Debi Prasad, AIR 1934 All 971 (C).;