ORDER : These two petitions have arisen out of a common order by the District Judge in Judicial Misc. Case Nos. 59 of 1962 and 60 of 1962, in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1961. 2. The facts necessary for these petitions are as follows : The respondents herein filed Title Suit No. 42/58/36/59 before the Subordinate Judge against the two petitioners claiming title to a certain property and praying for delivery of possession from the petitioners. Their case was that the lands covered by patta Nos. 111/99-Kh. and 111/26-Kh. were purchased by their father Sanajao Singh in the name of his mother Ayangtombi Devi, that after their fathers death, they have been in possession of the lands and that the second petitioner Thopi Devi, their fathers sister sold away one sangam under patta No. 111/26-Kh. in 1958 in the name of the first petitioner, though she had no right or title over it. The second petitioner - Thopi Devi had filed a counter suit T.S. No. 28 of 1958 claiming possession of the lands under patta Nos. 111/99 and 111/26, stating that the said lands were purchased by her mother out u of money earned by her own labour, that after her mothers death, 7 years before suit, she was in possession of the said lands except one sangam which her mother had sold to petitioner 1, that after her mothers death, the respondents herein took the land on lease agreeing to pay loushal and that subsequently in July, 1956 the sold one sangam to respondent 2, and thereafter the respondents continued to cultivate the remaining lands paying lesser loushal and as they were now disputing her title she wanted delivery of possession from them. In the said suit, the first petitioner herein was not a party. Both the suits were tried together by the Subordinate Judge and by a common judgment he decreed T.S. No. 28 of 1958, in respect of possession of the lands under patta Nos. 111/26 and in/99 exclusive of the one sangam which had been sold to respondent 2. He also dismissed the suit filed by the respondents for declaration of their title to the one sangam of land under patta No. 111/26. 111/26 and in/99 exclusive of the one sangam which had been sold to respondent 2. He also dismissed the suit filed by the respondents for declaration of their title to the one sangam of land under patta No. 111/26. It would appear that instead of drawing up two separate decrees in respect of the two suits, a common decree was drawn up in which the parties are mentioned as in Title Suit No. 42/58/36/59. But it will be seen from the decree that the relief given is shown as delivery of possession of the lands under both the pattas to the second petitioner and no mention is made about the dismissal of the suit T. S. No. 42/58/36/59. A perusal of the order sheets in the two suits would show that no separate decree was drawn up and signed in T.S. No. 28 of 1958, but that such a decree was drawn up in T.S. No. 42/58/36/59. 3. The respondents herein who had lost both the suits preferred an appeal against the dismissal of their suit T. S. No. 42/58/36/59 as Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1961, in the District Court. As they were not furnished with any decree copy in T.S. No. 28 of 1958, they did not file any appeal against the decree in the said suit. 4. During the pendency of the said appeal, the respondents filed a petition for amendment of their plaint in T.S. 42/58/36/59 and for amendment of their written statement in T.S. No. 28 of 1958. This was in March, 1962. This petition was registered as Judicial Misc. Case No. 59 of 1962. What they wanted to insert by way of amendment in the plaint and the written statement was a plea of custom among the Manipuri Hindus that when a woman dies her Stridhan property is inherited by her sons to the exclusion, of the daughters and hence the second petitioner herein did not get any right in the lands. Subsequently, the respondents filed a separate petition in August, 1962 for amendment of their written statement in T.S. No. 28 of 1958 and prayed that their original application dated 23-3-1962 may be treated as one for amendment of the plaint in T.S. No. 42758/36/59. Thereupon, the application for amendment of the plaint was treated as Judicial Misc. Subsequently, the respondents filed a separate petition in August, 1962 for amendment of their written statement in T.S. No. 28 of 1958 and prayed that their original application dated 23-3-1962 may be treated as one for amendment of the plaint in T.S. No. 42758/36/59. Thereupon, the application for amendment of the plaint was treated as Judicial Misc. Case No. 60 of 1962 and the application for amendment of the written statement was treated as Judicial Misc. Case No. 59 of 1962. Then, the District Judge proceeded to consider both the petitions together and he pronounced a common order on 18-12-1962. 5. The learned District Judge held that there were two suits and that two separate appeals should have been filed, but that a perusal of the records showed that one decree was prepared and signed on 12-12-1960 and it was only its copy which was ordered to be kept on the record of the other file, that the trial Court should have got two separate decrees drawn up, that in case the amendment of the plaint alone is allowed and the amendment of the written statement is disallowed, it would mean virtual denial of the amendment of the plaint and further that if the amendment is allowed and Title Suit No. 42/58/36/59 is remanded for fresh disposal after framing necessary issue regarding custom and after recording additional evidence on it the common judgment in the other suit also would ipso facto stand set aside and it would not be proper for the judgment to be allowed to remain intact, so far as Suit No. 28 of 1958 is concerned and to set it aside so far as Suit No. 42/58/36/59 is concerned. Hence, he took recourse to Section 151 C.P.C. and in the interest of justice allowed amendment of the plaint as well as of the written statement on payment of reasonable costs. He further directed that the amendments would be allowed on payment of Rs. Hence, he took recourse to Section 151 C.P.C. and in the interest of justice allowed amendment of the plaint as well as of the written statement on payment of reasonable costs. He further directed that the amendments would be allowed on payment of Rs. 40/- as costs, that if the costs were not paid within 2 weeks, the appeal will be heard, on merits for which a date was to be fixed and that if the costs were paid within time, the appeal would stand allowed and the cases remanded for fresh disposal according to law and he further, directed that the petitioners herein should be given, an opportunity to file additional written statement on the amended plaint and necessary issue or issues should be added and additional evidence recorded. It is against this common order which was passed in the two Judicial Misc. Cases, that the present revision petitions have been filed. Civil Revision No. 4 of 1963 being against the order in Judicial Misc. Case No. 59 of 1962 and Civil Revision No. 5 of 1963 being against the order in Judicial Misc. Case No. 60 of 1962. 6. I may further add that though the costs had not been paid on 18-12-1962, the District Judge made an order in the appeal that C.A. No. n of 1961 was allowed and the cases were remanded for fresh disposal. How he happened to pass such an order on 18-12-1962, is not known, as according to his own order in the Judicial Misc. Cases, the question of allowing the appeal would arise only on payment of the costs. I find that it is noted in the order sheet in the appeal that the costs were deposited on 19-12-1962. Hence, the order of the District Judge allowing the appeal on 18-12-1962 would appear to be premature. 7. Before I proceed to deal with the merits of the revision petitions, it is necessary to state that the Additional Subordinate Judge, who dealt with the suits committed a mistake in not having two separate decrees drawn up in the two suits. When a common judgment is passed in two suits, it is necessary to draw up separate decrees in the suits in accordance with, the directions in the common judgment. This is the personal responsibility of the Judge, who pronounced the common judgment. Otherwise, it will lead to various complications. When a common judgment is passed in two suits, it is necessary to draw up separate decrees in the suits in accordance with, the directions in the common judgment. This is the personal responsibility of the Judge, who pronounced the common judgment. Otherwise, it will lead to various complications. In this particular case, the respondents were prevented from filing an appeal against the judgment and decree in T. S. No. 28 of 1958. The statement of the District Judge in the order under revision that a perusal of the records showed that only out decree was prepared and signed on 12-12-1960 and it was only its copy which was ordered to be kept on the record of the other file does not appear to be wholly correct. It is true that only one decree was prepared and that too only in T.S. No. 42/58/36/59, though in the heading both the suits are mentioned. But in the decretal portion, only the relief given in T.S. No. 28 of 1958 is mentioned and the parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as in Title Suit No. 42/58/36/59. This is indeed a very careless method of preparing the decree. 8. I believe that in all cases where decrees are prepared, notice is issued to the counsel of both the parties to approve of the decree before the fair decree is drawn up and signed by the Judge as required under rule 67 of the General Rules (Civil) and I take it that no objection was raised by either party to the decree as drawn up. Still, it is the duty of the Judge who pronounced the judgment to see that the decree is drawn do as directed in Rules 64 to 66 of the General Rules (Civil). The District Judge is directed to see that this procedure is adopted in all the Courts in drawing up decrees. 9. But the statement of the District Judge In this case that the copy of the decree was ordered to be kept In the file of T.S. No. 28 of 1958 is not correct, I do not find any such order in the order sheet in T.S. No. 28 of 1958, though I find that a copy of the decree drawn up in T.S. No. 42/58/36/59 was, in fact, kept in the file of T.S. No. 28 of 1958. It was mentioned by the learned counsel for the respondents that no copy of the decree in T.S. No. 28 of 1958 was given to him, though he applied for it and hence he was not in a position to file an appeal against it. There is no Additional Subordinate Judge now. The Subordinate Judge is therefore directed to prepare a proper decree in T.S. No. 28 of 1958 and to grant a copy of the same to the respondents to enable them to file an appeal, if they so choose against the said decree. 10. I now come to the merits of the revision petitions. As far as the amendment of the plaint in T.S. No. 42/58/36/59 is concerned there is no difficulty. What is sought to be raised by way of amendment is a pure question of law. I find that though this was not raised in the plaint in the said suit, it was raised in the course of arguments at the time of trial, but that the Subordinate Judge refused to consider the arguments as the alleged custom was not specifically pleaded and proved. An opportunity can therefore be given to the respondents to raise the matter by way of amendment of the plaint. I also find that in the revision petitions the allowing of this amendment has not been seriously challenged. 11. But the more serious question is whether the learned District Judge had any power to allow the amendment of the written statement on T.S. No. 28 of 1958. The learned District Judge has purported to exercise the power under section 151 C.P.C. I do not think section 151 C.P.C. gives him any such power. He had before him only the appeal against the decree in T.S. No. 42/58/36/59. The decree in T.S. No. 28 of 1958 was not in appeal before him. It has to be mentioned that T.S. No. 42/58/36/59 related only to one sangam of land in patta No. 111/26, whereas T.S. No. 28 of 1958 related to the lands under two pattas 111/99 and 111/26. Further, the first petitioner herein was not in any way concerned with T.S. No. 28 of 1958 in which the land sold to him was not included at all and he was not also a party in that suit. 12. Further, the first petitioner herein was not in any way concerned with T.S. No. 28 of 1958 in which the land sold to him was not included at all and he was not also a party in that suit. 12. Thus, in the appeal before him, the District Judge was only concerned with the land involved in T.S. No. 42/58/36/59. In such an appeal he can at best deal with only the pleadings in the suit in respect of which the appeal has been brought before him and he has no power to deal with the other suit, namely, T.S. No. 28 of 1958, in respect of which no appeal was before him. The District Judge has stated that if the amendment of the plaint is allowed in T.S. No. 42/58/36/59 and the suit is remanded for fresh disposal, the common judgment passed in the other suit would ipso facto stand set aside. This statement is wrong. It will not have such an effect. Of course, he is correct in saying that it will not be proper for the judgment in T.S. No. 28 of 1958 to remain Intact when the common judgment is set aside so far as the other suit is concerned. But T.S. No. 28 of 1958, covered wider ground than T.S. No. 42/58/36/59 and the first petitioner was not a party to T.S. No. 28 of 1958. The power of an appellate Court in an appeal is confined to the matter, which is before it in appeal and it cannot assume a jurisdiction to deal with the matters involved in another suit, which has not come up in appeal before him and he cannot apply section 151 C.P.C. to claim jurisdiction to pass orders in connection with the other suit, which is not before him. There can be no doubt that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction in the appeal before him against the decree in T.S. No. 42/58/36/59 to allow an amendment of the written statement in T.S. No. 28 of 1958, even though a common judgment was pronounced in the two suits. His order allowing the amendment of the written statement in T.S. No. 28 of 1958 has, therefore to be declared as passed without jurisdiction and his further order directing the remand of the cases to the lower Court has also to be declared as without jurisdiction. His order allowing the amendment of the written statement in T.S. No. 28 of 1958 has, therefore to be declared as passed without jurisdiction and his further order directing the remand of the cases to the lower Court has also to be declared as without jurisdiction. He has not clarified what he meant by "the cases. Evidently, he was seeking to remand T.S. No. 42/58/36/59 as also T.S. No. 28 of 1958. His order of remand of T.S. No. 42/58/1 36/59 is quite correct in view of the amendment of the plaint, but his order of remand if it is sought to be of T.S. No. 28 of 1958 also is clearly without jurisdiction and has to be set aside. It is only when the respondents filed an appeal against the judgment and decree in T.S. No. 28 of 1958 and the appeal comes up before him and they applied for amendment of the written statement in the suit that the District Judge will have the power to order the amendment of the written statement and to direct the remand of the suit. 13. Civil Revision Case No. 5 of 1963, which is filed against the order in Judicial Misc. Case No. 60 of 1962 which, relates to the amendment of the plaint in T.S. No. 42/58/36/59 is, therefore, dismissed and the order allowing the amendment of the plaint will stand. But Civil Revision No. 4 of 1963, which is filed against the order in Judicial Misc. Case No. 59 of 1962, allowing the amendment of the written statement in T.S. No. 28 of 1958 is allowed and the order of the District Judge, allowing the said amendment is set aside. The Subordinate Judge is directed to prepare a decree in T.S. No. 28 of 1958 and to grant a copy of the decree to the respondents herein so as to enable them, if they so choose, to file an appeal against the said decree. Under the circumstances of this case, parties are directed to bear their own costs in both the Civil Revision petitions. Order accordingly.