JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a revision against order dated 29-1-1977 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Jhansi Division, dismissing review application under Order 47, Rule 1 read with section 151 C.P.C. filed by Maiyadin, defendant-applicant, against order dated 28-9-70 amending the appellate court in appeal no. 284/247 of 1966 deciding on 27-7-67 regarding ejectment of the appellate Maiayadin. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are the Anand Bahari and other filed a suit under section 229-B/209 of the Z.A. and L.R. Act against Maiya Din in respect of plot Nos. 2632 and 2633 total area 5 bigha 4 biswa situate in village Jamalpur Pargana and distt. Banda. The suit was dismissed by the lower court on 11-2-65. The appeal against the order of the learned lower court was allowed on 27-7-67. Maiya Din then went in appeal before the Hon'ble Board of revenue which was dismissed. Maiya Din then filed an application for review and thereafter a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court but both them were dismissed. 3. Anand Behari and others then applied for execution of decree. Maiya Din filed an objection on the ground that the learned Additional Commissioner had only passed a decree for declaration and not for eviction of Maiya Din. In the original judgment the last three lines were typed in single space while the remaining judgment was typed in double space. Since this raised a doubt, the then Additional Commissioner, at the request of Maiya Din, summoned the true copy issued from the Copying Section of the Commissioner's office of Maiya Din which he had filed before the Hon'ble Board of Revenue along with his appeal. This copy was examined by my learned predecessor. Sri S.K. Ahmad who has clearly observed in the Memo prepared by him on 6-2-73 that in the copy of the judgment which is a carbon copy of the following lines do not find place:- "The plaintiffs are declared as bhumidhars of the land in suit and defendant respondent No. 1 will be ejected from the suit land". 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record along with the record of the Board of Revenue. 5. Sri S.K. Ahmad, Additional Commissioner, had observed in his memo dated 6-2-73 as mentioned above. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record along with the record of the Board of Revenue. 5. Sri S.K. Ahmad, Additional Commissioner, had observed in his memo dated 6-2-73 as mentioned above. It is clear that three lines mentioned by him were certainly typed after the issue of copy to Maiyadin and it is also clear that these lines were added in the judgment afterwards and the decree was accordingly amended by the order of Sri Chitranged Sigh Additional Commissioner dated 28-9-70. 6. It is admitted fact that the said line in the judgment and the amendment accordingly was ordered and made without notice to Maiyadin. The main question for determination is whether such an amendment was legal and within the jurisdiction of the first appellate court without notice to Maiyadin whose valuable rights are going to be affected. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the decree of the first appellate court merged into the decree of the Hon'ble Board of Revenue and the first appellate court has no jurisdiction to amend its decree. Reliance has been placed on A.I.R. 1965 Alld. page 226 it was further argued that amendment of decree without giving opportunity to the parties against whom it is to operate it is open to him to apply for review to the court ordering such amendment, which opportunity had wrongly been denied by the learned Addl. Commissioner by dismissing his review application. Reliance has been placed on A.I.R. 1926 Alld. Page 384. 8. In reply it was argued that the first appellate court had inherent jurisdiction to make amendment in the judgment and the decree as it was only a mistake by slip that relief for possession to the plaintiff was not mentioned in the judgment and consequently in the decree passed by it. Reliance has been placed on A.I.R. 1967 (S.C.) page 1440 Paragraph 11. It was further argued that test for determination whether the mistake is due to accidental slip or omission is whether the order as it stands represents the intention of the Judge at the time he made it and if it does then a mistake in it cannot be treated as an accidental slip or omission which may be corrected under section 152, Reliance has been placed on A.I.R. 1942 (Oudh) page 226. 9. 9. I have given due consideration to the matter. The amendment of decree ordered by Sri Chitranged Singh, Additional Commissioner, on 28-9-70 was without jurisdiction a the decree of the first appellate court had merged in the decree of the Hon'ble Board of Revenue by its order dated 19-5-69. Therefore as held in 1965 A.I.R. (Allahabad) page 226 that it is decree of the lower appellate court that governs the right of parties:- "The lower appellate court decree is final decree and the decree of the lower court merges with it. The doctrine of merger applies even where the second appeal has been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court immediately, under Order 41, Rule 11 C.P.C. It follows that in such a case the application for amendment of decree must be made to the High Court and not to the lower appellate court". 10. The order in question dismissing the review application holding that no prejudice was caused to the applicant is the lower appellate court in the decree of the Board of Revenue it was not within the jurisdiction of the lower appellate court to amend the decree as held above. Secondly it was not ordinary clerical error which was ordered, but addition was made in the judgment of the first appellate court as mentioned above which was without notice to the person who was to be affected seriously and then the decree passed was amended without jurisdiction, without notice to the person seriously affected. Therefore as held in 1926 Allahabad page 384 the dismissed of review application as erroneous without considering the illegality of the order for amending the decree and without considering the seriousness of the matter with the reasoning that the judgment ought have been also for ejectment of the applicant and the decree was therefore rightly amended. 11. I do not propose to consider whether mistake in the judgment was accidental slip or omission or not in view of the fact that the first appellate court had no jurisdiction who amended the decree after its decree merged into the decree of the Board of Revenue. In the circumstances of the case it is not possible to hold that judgment was amended by adding the aforesaid lines by the Additional Commissioner who had pronounced it with the view to make its intention clear or not. In the circumstances of the case it is not possible to hold that judgment was amended by adding the aforesaid lines by the Additional Commissioner who had pronounced it with the view to make its intention clear or not. It is not necessary to go into its details in view of the matter that the decree of the first appellate court should not have been amended by it after its merger in the decree of the Board of Revenue. 12. In view of the above in my considered opinion this revision application is liable to be allowed and the order dated 29-1-77 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Jhansi Division along with the order dated 28-9-70 amending the decree of the first appellate court are liable to be set aside. 13. In view of the above, this revision application is allowed and the orders in question dated 28-9-70 and 29-1-75 are hereby set aside. The decree of the first appellate court prior to its amendment in question shall be restored.