P.C. Banerji, J.
1. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the learned Munsif was justified in correcting his judgment and decree. What happened was that the plaintiff brought a suit for possession of property left by one Sheoraj, claiming the whole of it on the ground that he was the only son of Sheoraj. The defendant Bhagirathi claimed to be another son of Sheoraj by another wife. This was denied on behalf of the plaintiff, and the Court of first instance found that the defendant was not the son of Sheoraj and that the plaintiff alone was entitled to the property. By a clerical error, instead of recording a decree in favour of the plaintiff, the final order of the Mnnsif was one of dismissal of the suit, a decree was drawn up in accordance with this judgment. It having been brought to the notice of the learned Munsif that an error had crept into the judgment, he corrected the judgment and the decree, and substituted for the word 'dismissed' the word 'decreed'. It is urged that the Munsif had no power to make this correction and that his original decree dismissing the suit should hold good. I do not agree with this contention. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was enacted clearly with the object of enabling the Court to correct clerical mistakes made by it in the judgment or decree or in any order. The Munsif's judgment shows that the findings were all in favour of the plaintiff and that he intended to decree the claim. It was only by an oversight that he wrote out an order of dismissal. After the correction of the judgment and the decree the defendant appealed to the District Judge and on the merits the learned Judge found against the defendent. So that neither on the point of law nor on the merits the defendant-appellant had any case. I dismiss the appeal with costs, including fees on the higher scale.