JUDGMENT M.P. Sexena, J. - This is a revision application under section 115 C.P.C. by defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 against the judgment and order dated 27-2-1973 by the learned Judge Small Cause Court, Allahabad. 2. Briefly stated that facts are that the plaintiffs opposite party had filed a suit for ejectment against five defendants, including the revisionists. Jhhamman defendant No. 1 was alleged to be the chief tenant and the remaining defendants were said to be his sub-tenants. The suit was contested by Jhhamman alone and was decreed against him on merits and exparate against other defendants on 18-5-1971. Thereafter Jhhamman filed an appeal on 4-8-1971. It was C.A. No. 185 of 1971. On 30-7-1971 the revisionists alone filed an application under Order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the exparate decree. In the first appeal all the subtenants were made parties. The revisionists had notice of that appeal and were represented by a counsel but they did not take any step to have the hearing of the appeal stayed till the disposal of the application under Order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. with the result that the appeal was dismissed on 27-3-1972. On 15-4-1972 the application under Order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. came up for hearing and was rejected because the decree of the trial Court had merged in the decree of the first Appellate Court and the application had become infructuous. 3. Jhamman, the chief tenant, appears to have filed a second appeal but unsuccessfully. 4. Against the rejection of their application under Order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. the revisionists filed a Misc. Appeal which was dismissed on 27-3-1972 It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. 5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that one of the revisionists was not duly served in the Appeal filed by Jhamman. Therefore his right to have the exparte decree of the trial court set aside cannot be taken away. It has no force because before the learned lower courts it was admitted that all of them were duly served with notices and were even represented by a counsel. There is nothing on the record against it and they cannot be allowed to resile from it. It being a finding of fact based on admission cannot be disturbed in revision. It has no force because before the learned lower courts it was admitted that all of them were duly served with notices and were even represented by a counsel. There is nothing on the record against it and they cannot be allowed to resile from it. It being a finding of fact based on admission cannot be disturbed in revision. It makes it clear that the appeal was decided with due notice to the revisionists when the application under Order 9 rule 13 was still pending. There can be no manner of doubt that the decree of the trial court merged in the decree of the appellate court and the application for setting aside the exparte decree became infructuous. This conclusion is amply supported by the case of Mathura Prasad v. Ram Charan Lal, XIII (1915) A.L.J. 283, in which an application for setting aside an ex parte decree was made by a defendant while an appeal preferred by other defendants was pending in the High Court. The application was not heard till the decision of the appeal. The Division Bench held that after the decision of the appeal by the High Court, the lower court could not alter or amend its decree. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionists has alluded to a number of cases to support his contention that in such a case the application under Order 9 rule 13 C.P.C, does not become infructuous. I have gone through these cases and in my judgment they are clearly distinguishable. 7. In Balbhim Rao v. Alkh Murarilal, AIR 1954 Madhya Bharat 4, it has been held that once an appeal against a trial court decree is decided either way the trial court decree merges in the appellate court decree and it is beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court to set aside or modify in any manner the decree so merged. 8. In Mohd. Ahsan Ali v. Tkram Ali & others, AIR 1929 Oudh 35 two decree were passad exparte by the Sub Judge. The defendants appellants applied on 13-7-1927 in the trial court for setting aside the exparte decree and also filed two appeals on 11-10-1927. The appeals were dismissed and then the application' for setting aside the ex parte decree came up for hearing before the trial court. It was held that it had no jurisdiction to do so after the appeals were dismissed. The appeals were dismissed and then the application' for setting aside the ex parte decree came up for hearing before the trial court. It was held that it had no jurisdiction to do so after the appeals were dismissed. The Chief Court confirmed this decision. 9. The other cases have been fully discussed by the learned lower appellate court and rightly distinguished. I am, therefore in agreement that in the instant case the revisionists had full notice of the appeal. They did not have its hearing stayed till disposal of their application under Order 9 rule 13 Civil Procedure Code. After the decision in the appeal the decree of the trial court merged in the decree of the appellate court and the trial court had no jurisdiction to restore. The learned trial court, therefore rightly rejected that application. 10. The revision application is accordingly dismissed with costs to the opposite party.