JUDGMENT : 1. In this revision by the defendants, a question of law has been raised for consideration of this Court in the following circumstances. 2. The plaintiffs-opposite party had instituted a suit for redemption of a rehan deed with respect to certain lands and recovery of possession with mesne profits in the court of the Second Munsif at Buxar. The suit was decreed, and a preliminary decree for redemption was passed by him. A title appeal, being Title Appeal No. 99/30 of 1961/66, was taken by the defendants, to the court of appeal below, but the defendants lost there also. Then, they filed Second Appeal No. 254 of 1970 in this Court. In the meantime, the plaintiffs made an application for passing a final decree and accordingly, on the 25th November, 1970, the trial court passed a final decree. On the 30th March, 1971, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the trial court for amending the decree as well as the operative portion of the JUDGMENT : to include the mesne profits therein. It is not disputed that in the JUDGMENT :, the question of mesne profits was specifically considered and was decided in favour of the plaintiffs, but this was not carried in the decree. The prayer of the plaintiffs was allowed by the Munsif on the 5th April, 1971. The aforesaid second appeal was pending at that time in this Court, but that has since been disposed of on the 18th July, 1972. 3. In the impugned ORDER :, the learned Munsif has held that from a perusal of the JUDGMENT : and decree it was apparent that the plaintiffs claim for mesne profits had already been allowed in the JUDGMENT : but by mistake it was not mentioned in the concluding portion of the JUDGMENT : resulting in its omission in the decree as well. In this Court, Mr. Ramakant Verma for the petitioners has raised a question that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned ORDER :in view of the fact that the JUDGMENT : and decree passed by him had merged in the JUDGMENT : and decree of the superior court, that is, at that time in the JUDGMENT : and decree of the court of appeal below and now of this Court in the said second appeal. The contention seems to be well founded and it must be accepted. When an appeal is filed against a JUDGMENT : of the trial court, it was only the appellate court which had got the authority to amend the decree and correct the mistake, if any, perpetrated by the trial court in the preparation of the decree which had been affirmed by the High Court. In the case of (1) Mt Kulwanti Devi and others. V. Ajodhi Singh and others (A.I.R. 1959 Patna 591), the name of the minor defendant was omitted from the decree. In an appeal from the said decree in this Court, the name of the said minor remained omitted on account of its absence from the decree. This Court, however, affirmed the decree, and, then an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made, after some time, in the trial court when this mistake was detected; but that court refused to allow the amendment on the ground that the decree passed by it had merged in the decree of the High Court, which alone could pass the ORDER :of amendment. Thereupon, an application was made in this Court, and the learned Judge, on a consideration of the various authorities, allowed the amendment. The Supreme Court has also considered the question of merger in many cases. The principle has been well explained and enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, and I may refer to only three cases of that Court, namely (2) State of Madras V. Madhrai Mills Co. Ltd. (A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 618), (3) Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar V. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat (A.I.R. 1970 Supreme Court 1) and (4) M/s Hojer Brothers (P.) Ltd, V. Shri Ratan Lal Singh (A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 1380) where it has been clearly laid down that where the decree of a court is carried in appeal and the appellate court disposes of the appeal after contented bearing, the decree of the trial court is merged in the decree of the appellate court. In respectful agreement with the views expressed by the learned Judges in the said cases it must be held that the ORDER :passed by the Munsif is without jurisdiction and the same must be set aside. 4. In the result, the application is allowed and the ORDER :in question is set aside. But I shall make no ORDER :as to costs. 4. In the result, the application is allowed and the ORDER :in question is set aside. But I shall make no ORDER :as to costs. Application allowed