Rectification of mortgage deed must follow statutory remedy; inherent powers cannot alter substantive terms or substitute properties.

Correction of a mortgage deed by substituting different properties was not a clerical or accidental error capable of being corrected under the court's powers under Sections 152 or 151 CPC. The mistake lay in the mortgage deed itself, and if it arose from mutual mistake, the proper remedy was a suit for rectification under the Specific Relief Act. Inherent powers could not be used to alter the substantive terms of the mortgage deed or the foundation of the suit where a specific statutory remedy was available. The application was therefore outside the scope of Sections 152 and 151 CPC and should be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the correction of a mortgage deed and the related plaint and decrees by substituting different properties could be made under the court's power to correct clerical or accidental errors, or under its inherent powers, instead of by a suit for rectification.

Analysis: The correction sought was not a clerical or arithmetical mistake and did not arise from any accidental slip or omission in the proceedings. The error was in the mortgage deed itself and, if mutual mistake existed, the proper remedy was rectification of the instrument by a suit under the Specific Relief Act. The inherent power of the court could not be used to confer a jurisdiction to alter substantive terms of the mortgage deed and the foundation of the suit, especially where a specific statutory remedy was available.

Conclusion: The application did not fall within Section 152 or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and should have been dismissed.

---