Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.
1. The point that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in having declined to amend the decree and judgment in order to provide for the payment of interest on the unpaid purchase money directed to be paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant. The judgment as well as the decree drafted in accordance with the judgment did not provide for payment of any interest on the unpaid purchase money. The first defendant took out an application to amend the Judgment and decree in order that such a provision may be made by the Subordinate Judge. The application was made under Sections 151 and 152 C. P C, and the learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that under Section 55(4) of the T. P. Act his client was entitled statutorily for payment of Interest on the unpaid purchase money directed to be paid to her under the judgment and decree. I do not think that it can be denied that interest should have been provided for on the unpaid purchase money both in the judgment and decree. But when that has not been provided, the question arises as to what is the procedure that the petitioner was entitled to have recourse to in order to get this omission rectified. He should have, in the first instance, preferred either a review or an appeal against the Judgment and decree which failed to provide for interest on the unpaid purchase money which he was entitled to under Section 55(4) of the T. P. Act. He did not choose to do so and he allowed nearly 4 or 5 years to elapse before he could think of asking the Court to make the necessary amendment in the decree and judgment of the Court. When once the judgment is silent with regard to the provisions for payment of interest on the unpaid purchase money and the decree also is drafted in accordance with the said judgment, it cannot be said that there has been any omission or slip or accidental error that could be rectified under Sections 151 and 152 C. P. C. The failure to provide for interest n the judgment must be taken to have been deliberate and the implication would be that the Court refused to provide for interest. It cannot be assumed that the Court was ignorant of the provision of aw referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, the necessary inference warranted under the provisions of the Civil P. C. would be that the learned Judge who passed the Judgment and decree did not think it fit or proper to award interest on the unpaid purchase money. However, that be, in so far as the decree is not at variance with the Judgment and in so far as the learned counsel for the petitioner has not approached the Court by way of a review or even by way of an appeal to set right the omission to give him the interest which he was entitled to under the statute, I do not think the defect could be remedied by means of an application under Sections 151 and 152 C.P.C. In these circumstances I must hold that what the learned Subordinate Judge has done is the right thing and there is no error of law or jurisdiction in the order that has been passed by the learned Subordinate Judge rejecting the application of the petitioner. This petition is therefore dismissed. In the circumstances I do not think there need be any order as to costs.