JUDGMENT Bennett, J. - This is an application in revision u/s 115 of the CPC against the order passed by the learned Munsif, North Lucknow, on the 16th September, 1939, ordering the amendment of a decree on an application which was apparently made u/s 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit (was) brought in the Munsif's Court for arrears of rent and for ejectment. The prayer for ejectment was subsequently given up and the suit was decreed for arrears of rent and the prayer for ejectment rejected on the 17th October, 1938. An appeal was filed by the defendant and this appeal was dismissed on the 18th May, 1939. On the 9th August, 1939, the plaintiff applied for amendment of the decree so far as it related to costs. He represented that a larger sum should have been allowed to him. The order passed by the Munsif was:-- The application is allowed. Decree should be amended as proportionate costs were ordered only as the plaintiff gave up relief for ejectment. Only the costs on relief for ejectment should not have been taxed. It has been stated in this Court by the learned Counsel for the opposite-party that there were actually two grounds on which amendment was sought, the first being the fact that subsequent to the appeal the plaintiff had been obliged to pay an expert in the case a larger fee then was allowed for in the decree, and the second that the order of the lower Court in regard to proportionate costs had been misunderstood in the preparation of the decree. 2. It is contended in the present application in revision that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to amend the decree as it had merged in the decree of the appellate Court. It is also contended that the decree was prepared in accordance with the order of the trial Court. 3. In support of the contention that once an appeal has been heard and decided the decree of the trial Court merges in the appellate decree, I have been referred to three cases namely, Munuswami Mudali and Others Vs. Jagannadha Reddi and Others, AIR 1929 Mad 830 , Ahmad Husain and Others Vs. Asma Bibi, (1908) ILR (All) 290 and Shivlal Kalidas v. Jumaklal Nathiji Desai (1893) 18 Bom. 542. Jagannadha Reddi and Others, AIR 1929 Mad 830 , Ahmad Husain and Others Vs. Asma Bibi, (1908) ILR (All) 290 and Shivlal Kalidas v. Jumaklal Nathiji Desai (1893) 18 Bom. 542. The head note in the first case is to the effect that after the lower Court's decree has been confirmed by the appellate Court the jurisdiction of the lower Court to amend its decree ceases. In the Allahabad case it was similarly held that the dismissal of an appeal is a decree and supersedes the decree of the Court below. Consequently the appellate Court is the only Court which has jurisdiction to amend the decree. In the Bombay case an application for amendment was made to the appellate Court, that is the Bombay High Court, and it was contended for the defendant that the application should have been made to the lower appellate Court. The Bombay High Court held that the only decree which existed for the purposes of execution after the High Court confirmed the decree of the Court below was the decree of the High Court into which that of the lower Court became incorporated. The application was, therefore, properly made to the High Court. 4. For the opposite-party I have been referred to a case of the Allahabad High Court, Chinta Mani Vs. Debi Prasad, AIR 1934 All 971 in which it was held that notwithstanding the fact that the decree of the trial Court, has merged in the decree of the appellate Court, the former Court has power u/s 152 of the CPC to make an amendment if the amendment is merely of a clerical or arithmetical mistake. 5. It might, therefore, have been permissible on the authority of this latter ruling for the decree to have been amended by the trial Court, if the correction was merely of a clerical or arithmetical mistake. It appears to me, however, impossible to hold that the correction in the present case was of this nature. So far as the expert's fee was concerned the decree was prepared correctly so far as the facts in regard to the amount were known at the time of its preparation. It appears to me, however, impossible to hold that the correction in the present case was of this nature. So far as the expert's fee was concerned the decree was prepared correctly so far as the facts in regard to the amount were known at the time of its preparation. There is a dispute between the parties as regards the interpretation to be placed on the order of the trial Court in regard to proportionate costs, and it cannot be said, therefore, that there was a clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent on the face of the record. The question should have been raised in the appeal. I do not consider that there should be any extension of the principle laid down in Chinta Mani Vs. Debi Prasad, AIR 1934 All 971 that amendment of a decree may be made by the lower Court u/s 152 where the correction is merely of a clerical or arithmetical mistake. The trial Court has ordinarily no jurisdiction left in cases where the decree of that Court has merged in the decree of the appellate Court. I find, therefore, that whatever may be the merits of the order passed, the Munsif had no jurisdiction to pass the order. I accordingly allow this application with costs and set aside the lower Court's order.