JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein he has modified/corrected the cause title of the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2015, pursuant to an application dated 26.11.2016, filed by the decree holder under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent No.1 Sujaram had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents No.2 to 6, including (Jamna) the present petitioner. 3. The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 23.03.2015, however, the name of Jamna could not be mentioned in the arena of parties, in the said judgment. During the course of execution proceedings, decree holder - Sujaram realizing this fact moved an application dated 26.11.2016 under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed that the name of Jamna be mentioned in the cause - title, as she was a party in the suit proceedings and her name could not be inscribed due to inadvertence. 4. The said application dated 26.11.2016 has been allowed by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 17.01.2017, while observing as under:- ^^tgka rd fMdzhnkj ds izkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk 152 fliz0la0 ds in la0 1 o 2 esa of.kZr rF;ksa dk iz'u gS bl izko/kku ds v/khu U;k;ky; dks fu.kZ;ksa] fMfdz;ksa ;k vkns'kksa esa ys[ku ;k xf.kr Hkwy] vkdfLed Hkwy ;k yksi esa xyfr;ka gksus ij U;k;ky; }kjk Loizsj.kk ;k i{kdkj ds vkosnu ij fdlh Hkh le; 'kq) dh tk ldsxhA pwafd nhokuh okn la0 46@2011 lqtkjke cuke nkukjke oxSjg esa dqy 6 izfroknhx.k esa dze la0 5 teuk izfroknh ntZ gS ysfdu ikfjr fu.kZ; fnuakd 23-03-2015 esa izfroknhx.k esa teuk dk uke =qfVo'k ntZ ugha fd;k gS ,slh fLFkfr esa dze la0 5 ij teuk iRuh deys'k tkfr eh.kk fuoklh ykyiksy ds ckgj tkyksj rglhy o ftyk tkyksj dks crkSj izfroknh i{kdkj ntZ djus gsrq la'kks/ku fd;k tkrk gS ,ao fu.kZ; esa ntZ izfroknh la0 5 ij ntZ izfroknh la0 5 tEeq dks izfroknh la0 6 ds :i esa la'kks/ku fd;k tkrk gSA** 5. Mr. Vinit Sanadhya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the name of Jamna could not be inserted or added by the executive Court, during the course of execution proceedings. Mr. Vinit Sanadhya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the name of Jamna could not be inserted or added by the executive Court, during the course of execution proceedings. He added that even if the learned Court below was of the view that the name of Jamna was required to be added, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to have issued a notice to the petitioner (Jamna). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Court below has erred in adding the petitioner's name in the judgment and decree, particularly when the petitioner remained ex-parte and proper service of notice was not effected upon her. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 7. The undisputed facts of the present case are that the petitioner Smt. Jamna W/o Kamlesh and her husband Kamlesh being defendant No.3, both were parties before the learned Trial Court. However, while drawing the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2015, the name of Jamna could not be mentioned in the array of the parties, which inadvertent error has been rectified by the learned Court below, vide its impugned order dated 17.01.2017. 8. Technically, the argument of Mr. Sanadhya may be correct that before inserting the name of Jamna, a notice ought to have been issued to her, however appreciating the overall facts and circumstances, since it is not in dispute that Jamna along with her husband were parties in the suit proceedings and the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2015 omits to mention her name, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would have been served by observing a formality by issuing a notice to Jamna. 9. The learned Trial Court has rightly exercised its power under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This court does not find any error of law and jurisdiction in the order impugned carrying out requisite correction in the cause title of the judgment and inscribing the name of petitioner (Jamna), particularly when the said order was passed in presence of the counsel for the other judgment debtor(s), including the petitioner's husband (Kamlesh) and there is no change in the body of judgment. 10. 10. Counsel further submitted that against the said judgment and decree dated 23.03.2015, an appeal is pending before the learned Appellate Court, as such the learned Court below ceased to have jurisdiction, to pass even the order of correction. In opinion this Court, doctrine of merger does not apply until and unless the appeal is finally decided by the Appellate Court. 11. As such, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Trial Court did have the jurisdiction and power to rectify the inadvertent error, crept in the order, in exercise of powers available to it under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. In view of above, this Court does not deem it appropriate to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 Constitution of India, as no substantial injustice has been caused to the petitioner. 13. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.