JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - This revision is directed against an order dated 11-3-1967 passed by Sri L.D. Mallik, subordinate judge, Bargarh, in a proceeding for amendment of the plaint, judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 4 7/55, in which the said amendment was allowed. 2. The opposite parties, as Plaintiffs, instituted T.S. No. 47/55 in the Court of the subordinate judge, Sambalpur, for eviction of the Defendants from a portion of the suit-schedule house and for recovery of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 700/-. The suit was decreed for eviction, but the claim for arrears of rent was disallowed. There was a First Appeal preferred by the Defendants which was numbered as F.A. 24/62. That first appeal was dismissed on 13-7-1964 as ?not passed?. 3. During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, the Plaintiff-opposite-parties filed execution in Ex. Case No. 38 of 1963, in Court of the subordinate judge, Sambalpur. This Ex. Case was transferred to the file of the subordinate judge, Bargarh, and was renumbered as Ex. Case No. 3 of 1906. The Plaintiff-opposite parties filed a petition u/s 151 and 152, Code of Civil Procedure, and prayed for amendment of the plaint, judgment and degree passed in T.S. No. 47/55. The amendment sought for was to substitute the name of "Bhimaraj Onkarmal Firm through Onkarmal Agrawallas" in place of "Bhimaraj Onkarmal Agrawallas". Defendant-1 was described originally by the latter name. This amendment was sought for on the ground that the error in the description was due to clerical mistake. Upon filing of this amendment petition, Misc. Case No. 59/66 was registered and notice was issued to the Defendants. Opposite party No. 3 alone filed objection. The objection was that the Court had no jurisdiction to amend the judgment and decree at that stage after the Defendant has preferred an appeal to the Hon?ble High Court and the same having been dismissed as ?not pressed?. The other objections were that the alleged mistake in the plaint was never a clerical or formal one and that Bhimaraj Onkarmal Firm as such was not a party to the suit. The other objections were that the alleged mistake in the plaint was never a clerical or formal one and that Bhimaraj Onkarmal Firm as such was not a party to the suit. With regard to the jurisdiction of the trial Court in executing the decree and to amend the same and the judgment, after the case had gone to the High Court and disposed of, the learned subordinate Judge held that "this Court has got power to amend the plaint, judgment and decree of the lower Court even though the First Appeal No. 24 of 1962 arising out of T.S. No. 47/55 bad been dismissed in the High Court as ?not pressed?". He relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1966 Orissa 2251, which in its turn, had relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1962 S.C. 6632, and a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1948 Cal. 1233. There is overwhelming judicial support for this view. This is a case where it cannot be said that the decree of the trial Court merged in the decree of the High Court, because the High Court Appeal was never disposed of on merits. This makes the case for holding that the subordinate judge had jurisdiction to amend, stronger. 4. The case might be viewed differently if the High Court had decided the First Appeal on merits and substituted its own judgment and decree. There is some view that, in such cases as the one referred to immediately before, the prayer for amendment if any, should be made to the appellate Court and not to the trial Court. I am, however, not going to decide the case one way or the other, because the Civil Revision can be decided on another shorter point to be dealt with hereinafter. 5. On merits, Defendant-1 was described as Bhimaraj Onkarmal Agrawalls in the cause-title portion of the plaint. In para 2 thereof it was stated: Defendants 2 to 4 brothers and are living as members of joint family governed by Mitakshara system of Hindu Law. They do business by the name and style of Bhimaraj Onkarmal Agarwalls at Bargarh which is essentially their joint family concern. It is, therefore, clear that what the Plaintiffs meant was that they were running the joint family firm of Bhimaraj Onkarmal Agarwalls represented by Defendants 2 to 4. They do business by the name and style of Bhimaraj Onkarmal Agarwalls at Bargarh which is essentially their joint family concern. It is, therefore, clear that what the Plaintiffs meant was that they were running the joint family firm of Bhimaraj Onkarmal Agarwalls represented by Defendants 2 to 4. The description in the cases title portion was therefore a, mistake, or an inadvertent error. It was also admitted by advocates on both sides before the Court of appeal below that there is no member of the family of the Defendants who is concerned with the suit-property for recovery of arrears of rent of which the execution proceedings have been started. The objection, therefore, advanced by opposite party No. 3 is a, highly technical one, intended to deprive the Plaintiffs of the fruits of their victory. I am, therefore, satisfied that real and substantial justice has been done by the order of the subordinate judge which is impugned in this Civil Revision. It has been held by this Court in the case of Narayan Nayak v. Sara Bewa 31 C.L.T. 443, that if the revisional Court finds that real and substantial justice has been done by the order of the appellate Court, though without jurisdiction, it may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in interfering with that order. Even if the subordinate judge, Bargarh, had acted without jurisdiction or had exercised his jurisdiction erroneously, I would still have refused to interfere with the said order on the hasis of the aforesaid principle called from the Orissa decision referred to above, because, in my opinion, real and substantial justice has been done. For the aforesaid reasons, I would dismiss this Revision, but make no order for costs. Final Result : Dismissed