Short Note : 1. In appeal before the lower Court arguments were heard on 25-11-75 and the case was closed for judgment. Thereafter on 27-11-75 non-applicant No.1 moved an application for amendment in his plaint whereby he sought to withdraw the admission made in paragraph No.2 of the plaint and wanted to make the averment that in the land described in the para No.2 of the plaint the applicant had no right, title or interest. That amendment application was opposed by the applicant but the Court below allowed it on 3-12-75 in exercise of its inherent powers and remanded the case back to the trial Court for further proceedings. The applicant has therefore come to this Court in revision. Held : I have beard the learned counsel from both the sides and perused the record. In paragraph No.2 of the plaint the non-applicant No. 1 had made clear admission that the applicant as well as the non-applicants had equal shares in the land mentioned in that para. On the basis of this admission the trial Court also passed the decree with respect to the partition of the said property and the declaration as sought by the plaintiff was given only with respect to the other 22 plots. When the non-applicant No. 1 did not file any appeal or cross-objection against the decree which was passed with respect to the 10 plots of land mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the plaint it had become final and that question could not have been reopened by making amendment in the plaint and withdrawing the admission by the Non-applicant No. 1 in the plaint. The lower appellate Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to allow the amendment as sought by the non-applicant No.1. Consequently the order of remand made by the lower appellate Court is also without jurisdiction Revision allowed