JUDGMENT Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. - Petitioner herein, who was defendant No. 10 in Civil Suit No. 20- A/89 (Smt. B. Leelavati Vs. Smt. N. Pramila Naidu & Ors.) decided by the trial Court on 31/07/1996 which was affirmed firstly by this Court in First Appeal No. 496/2011 (decided on 14/05/2009) and then by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 3322/2010 (dismissed on 17/11/2015), has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the impugned order dated 21/08/2019 passed by learned 5th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur by which petitioner's/defendant No. 10's application under Sections 151,152 and 153 of the CPC seeking amendment in judgment and decree dated 31/07/1996 passed by the trial Court has been rejected finding no merit. 2. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned senior counsel would submit that though the trial Court, in its judgment and decree dated 31/07/1996, has held that plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein would be entitled for 1/10th share in the suit property but has erred in dividing the shares correctly as there were 11 parties in the suit including the plaintiff and defendants, therefore, plaintiff/respondent No. 1 would be entitled for 1/11th share in the suit property and the same ought to have been amended, whereas the trial Court has declined to grant the application filed by petitioner/defendant No. 10 under Sections 151,152 and 153 of the CPC which is unsustainable and bad in law as also the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 moved an application which was rejected by the trial Court on 21/05/2006, as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered his submissions and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 4. It is correct to say that in Civil Suit No. 20-A/89 filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein, learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is entitled for 1/10th share in the suit property whereas there were in all 11 parties in the suit including the plaintiff and the defendants, but the said decree passed by the trial Court was affirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 496/2011 (decided on 14/05/2009) on merits and then SLP was also dismissed summarily on 17/11/2015. 5. 5. Learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Sections 151,152 and 153 of the CPC holding that once the decree of the trial Court has been affirmed in appeal and thereafter in SLP, then the decree passed by the trial Court is considered final and cannot be amended. 6. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the decree passed by the trial Court, which has been affirmed firstly by the High Court in first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC and thereafter, by the Supreme Court in the SLP, the power to amend the said decree can be exercised ? 7. At this stage, it would be relevant to notice Section 153A of the CPC which states as under :- S. 153A. Power to amend decree of order where appeal is summarily dismissed. - Where an Appellate Court dismisses an appeal under rule 11 of Order XLI, the power of the Court to amend, under Section 152, the decree or order in the first instance, notwithstanding that the dismissal of the appeal has the effect of confirming the decree or order, as the case may be, passed by the Court of first instance. 8. The principle underlying Section 153A of the CPC is the doctrine of merger. As per this doctrine, when an appeal is heard and disposed off after a contested hearing, the judgment of the trial Court merges in the judgment of the Appellate Court. Section 153A does not affect the power of the Appellate Court to correct an error in a decree. It merely saves the power of the trial Court and further it would apply where the appeal is dismissed summarily under Order 41 Rule 11 of the CPC. 9. Order 41 Rule 11 of the CPC provides as under :- 11. Power to dismiss appeal without sending notice to Lower Court. - [(1) The Appellate Court after fixing a day for hearing the appellant or his pleader and hearing him accordingly if he appears on that day may dismiss the appeal.] (2) If on the day fixed or any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. (3) The dismissal of an appeal under this rule shall be notified to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred. (4) Where an Appellate Court, not being the High Court, dismisses an appeal under sub-rule (1), it shall deliver a judgment, recording in brief its grounds for doing so, and a decree be drawn up in accordance with the judgment.] 10. If the appeal is not dismissed summarily, under Rule 12, the Appellate Court shall fix a date for hearing of the appeal and thereafter, notice will be issued under Order 41 Rule 14 of the CPC and thereafter, appeal has to be heard finally. 11. Thus, reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is a case where the appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was heard finally on merits and affirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 496/2011, as such, Section 153A of the CPC was not invokable and applicable in the present case by the petitioner herein for amending the decree and learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 10 for amending the decree dated 31/07/1996 passed by the trial Court as it has already been affirmed by the first appellate Court on merits and the first appeal preferred by the petitioner/defendant No. 10 was not dismissed summarily under Order 41 Rule 11 of the CPC. In view of that, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. The writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed summarily at the admission stage without notice to the other side. No cost(s).