to repair the house detailed in Schedule I of the plaint and by order dated 02.11.2016 the petition was allowed but instead of the plaintiff, defendant was permitted to repair the house of the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff-opposite party filed a petition for making correction in the order dated 02.11.2016 and by the impugned order dated 27.02.2017, the same error was rectified and instead of defendant, plaintiff was written in the order. The order appears to be the routine order. It appears that the defendantpetitioner wanted to take advantage of the clerical error crept in the order dated 02.11.2016 submitting that defendant was allowed to repair the house. Defendant had not filed any petition seeking any permission from the court to repair the house. It was the plaintiff who had filed petition and the petition of the plaintiff was allowed and permission was granted to repair the suit premises but due to mistake instead of plaintiff, defendant was typed, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order impugned dated 27.02.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-III, Patna City.
