ORDER : 1st Defendant in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 14.12.2022 in I.A.No.492 of 2021 in I.A.No.959 of 2012 in O.S.No.33 of 1988 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 2. Vale Nagamma and Mandlem Veeramma @ Eramma filed suit O.S.No.33 of 1988 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool seeking partition of schedule properties. As per the pleadings, plaint schedule properties belonged Vale Mareppa. 1st plaintiff Nagamma is the wife of Mareppa and 2nd plaintiff Veeramma is the daughter of 1st plaintiff and Mareppa. Defendants 1 to 3 are children of Busappa, son of Mareppa and Nagamma. Thus, the grandmother and paternal aunt filed suit for partition against the nieces. 3. A preliminary decree was passed on 17.10.1989. As per the preliminary decree, 1st plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties; Ac.5.00 cents of land out of item Nos.1 to 8, gifted to 2nd defendant by her father Busappa. Equities may be worked out while passing final decree. 4. Aggrieved by judgment and preliminary decree, plaintiffs filed appeal A.S.No.118 of 1990. Defendants filed appeal A.S.No.2209 of 1989. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed A.S.No.118 of 1990 partly and dismissed A.S.No.2209 of 1989. The Division Bench of High Court granted 1/6th share to each plaintiff. S.L.P.Nos.11792 and 11793 of 2004 were dismissed by the Apex Court. Review Petition (Civil) No.362 of 2007 was dismissed on 17.07.2007. Curative Petition Nos.140 and 141 of 2011 were dismissed on 12.01.2012. Thus, the preliminary decree passed by the High Court became final. 5. I.A.No.959 of 2012 was filed by defendants under Order XXVI Rules 13 and 14 and Section 151 of CPC to appoint an advocate commissioner and to divide the schedule properties by metes and bounds for the purpose of passing of final decree. 6. Pending the final decree petition, respondents 12 to 14, who were impleaded as parties, by virtue of order dated 13.11.2012 in I.A.No.1369 of 2012, filed I.A.No.492 of 2021 under Section 151 of CPC to modify the preliminary decree and to allot 5/9th share to 2nd plaintiff. 7. The affidavit was deposed by Y.Prasanth Babu, 13th respondent in final decree petition and 2nd petitioner in I.A.No.492 of 2021. 7. The affidavit was deposed by Y.Prasanth Babu, 13th respondent in final decree petition and 2nd petitioner in I.A.No.492 of 2021. In the affidavit, it was contended that petitioners along with father of deponent purchased part of item No.1 of plaint schedule properties during the pendency of suit, without knowledge about pendency of suit. They were impleaded as party respondents to final decree petition. The 2nd plaintiff was granted 1/6th share of decree schedule property on the ground that she is not a coparcener and her right is only to claim one share in the share of her father. By virtue of Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in Vineetha Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma, daughters became coparceners and they are entitled to equal share along with sons. Since, the partition is pending, 2nd plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share on her own and 1/3rd share in the property of her father. She is also entitled to full share of her mother, since her mother executed a Will dated 03.03.1988 bequeathing her share of property. In all 2nd plaintiff is entitled to 5/9th share in the entire schedule property. The 2nd plaintiff is no more, and her legal representatives are entitled to claim share. Petitioners are entitled to claim the property purchased by them out of 5/9th share of 2nd plaintiff. Hence, filed the application to modify the preliminary decree allotting 5/9th share. The natural heirs of 2nd plaintiff are shown as respondents 6 to 9 in the final decree petition. 8. 1st Respondent, who is 1st defendant in the suit, filed counter and opposed the application. In the counter, it was contended interalia that petitioners have no right to ask to modify the preliminary decree by allotting 5/9th share in favour of 2nd plaintiff. There is no mention about the Will dated 03.03.1988. An enquiry was conducted pursuant to the directions of this Court regarding genuineness of the Will dated 03.03.1988 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool and gave a finding on 26.08.1991 that Will dated 03.03.1988 executed by Nagamma in favour of Veeramma is not true and valid. As per the judgment of the High Court, the 2nd plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share only. Petitioners were impleaded in the final decree petition to work out their equities and petitioners cannot not ask for modification of preliminary decree. As per the judgment of the High Court, the 2nd plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share only. Petitioners were impleaded in the final decree petition to work out their equities and petitioners cannot not ask for modification of preliminary decree. It was specifically pleaded that the Court below has no right to modify the preliminary decree as per the judgment in Vineeta Sharma’s case, except on the application by the parties to the suit and eventually prayed to dismiss the suit. 9. By order dated 14.12.2022 the Court below allowed I.A.No.492 of 2021 modifying the preliminary decree to the extent of allotting half share to the deceased 2nd plaintiff-Mandlem Veeramma @ Eramma, being coparcener by virtue of amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The other findings in preliminary decree regarding allotment of Ac.5.00 cents of land to 2nd defendant remained unaltered. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant filed the above revision. 10. Initially, respondents 4 to 18 were shown as not necessary parties to the revision. However, respondents 4 and 5 filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking impleadment and the same was ordered on 05.01.2023. 11. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel representing M/s Bharadwaj Associates learned counsel for petitioner. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Mrs.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Sri P.Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that application filed under Section 151 of CPC itself is not maintainable seeking modification of preliminary decree. He would submit that once the preliminary decree is modified by the High Court in appeal, interlocutory application under Section 151 of CPC to modify preliminary decree in the trial Court is not maintainable. The appellate Court alone is competent to modify the decree. He would also submit that preliminary decree passed by the trial Court merged with the appellate Court’s decree and hence, the trial Court cannot review the preliminary decree passed by the appellate Court in appeal. He would also submit that respondents 1 to 3, being alleged purchasers of property from 2nd plaintiff cannot maintain the application to modify the preliminary decree and at the most, they are entitled to equities. He would also submit that respondents 1 to 3, being alleged purchasers of property from 2nd plaintiff cannot maintain the application to modify the preliminary decree and at the most, they are entitled to equities. Learned senior counsel, during the arguments pointed the findings recorded by the Court below regarding date of death of vendor of R1 to R3 is contrary to material on record. 13. Sri P.Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 adopted the arguments of learned senior counsel appearing for revision petitioner. 14. Per contra, Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Mrs.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, would submit that since final decree was not passed, by virtue of Apex Court’s judgment in Vineeta Sharma’s case, application is filed seeking modification of preliminary decree. He would submit that respondents 1 to 3 being purchasers of property from 2nd plaintiff are entitled to the share being allotted to 2nd plaintiff. Being purchasers of estate, they can maintain the application. 15. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the application under Section 151 of CPC to modify the preliminary decree, after the preliminary decree was modified in the appeal, is maintainable before the trial Court? 16. The facts narrated supra would disclose that suit O.S.No.33 of 1988 was filed by mother and daughter against the nieces, on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool. A preliminary decree was passed on 17.10.1989 allotting 1/4th share to 1st plaintiff (mother) alone. No share was granted/allotted to the daughter. In the appeal filed by mother and daughter A.S.No.118 of 1990, both mother and daughter were allotted 1/6th share each. Thus, preliminary decree passed by Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool was modified by the High Court in A.S.No.118 of 1990. The other appeal filed by defendants A.S.No.2209 of 1989 was dismissed. SLP filed by defendants was dismissed. Review and Curative Petitions were also dismissed. Thus, as per the preliminary decree modified by the High Court, both plaintiffs are entitled to 1/6th share. The decree passed by the High Court reads thus: 1) That the plaintiffs/appellants in A.S.No.118 of 1990 be and hereby are entitled to 1/6th share each and 2) That the lower court be and hereby is directed to draw a final decree in the above terms according to equities as was decided in the impugned judgment. 17. The decree passed by the High Court reads thus: 1) That the plaintiffs/appellants in A.S.No.118 of 1990 be and hereby are entitled to 1/6th share each and 2) That the lower court be and hereby is directed to draw a final decree in the above terms according to equities as was decided in the impugned judgment. 17. Whether the application under Section 151 of CPC is maintainable to modify the preliminary decree before the trial Court? 18. It is appropriate to extract Section 151, 152, 153 and 153-A of CPC. “Section 151 - Saving of inherent powers of Court – Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Section 152 - Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders – Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. Section 153 - General power to amend – The Court may at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding. Section 153A - Power to amend decree or 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 appealed against may be exercised by the Court which had passed 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.” 19. Section 153-A of CPC empowers the trial Court to amend the decree or order, when the appeal has been dismissed in limini. In M/s Hyderabad Allwyn Limited Vs. K.Patel and others, 1987 (1) ALT 184 (S.B.), learned single Judge of the composite High Court dealt with the scope of Section 153-A of CPC. Section 153-A of CPC empowers the trial Court to amend the decree or order, when the appeal has been dismissed in limini. In M/s Hyderabad Allwyn Limited Vs. K.Patel and others, 1987 (1) ALT 184 (S.B.), learned single Judge of the composite High Court dealt with the scope of Section 153-A of CPC. After considering other judgments and amendment of CPC by Amendment Act 1976, it was held thus: “It is clear that this court which passed the decree after hearing both the parties in the CCCA is entitled to deal with these amendment petitions.” It was further observed in Paragraph-15 that – “The question before me is whether as a court of appeal against judgment and decree passed in the suit, this court is competent to amend the decree. As already stated by me, section 153-A of CPC permits amendment by this Court.” 20. The modification sought for by respondents 1 to 3 is not clerical or arithmetical error. The modification sought for is to amend the decree to allot 5/9th share to the 2nd plaintiff. The preliminary decree passed by the trial Court was merged in the decree of appellate Court in A.S.No.118 of 1990. Once the decree is merged, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to modify or amend the preliminary decree. In fact, the appellate Court being final fact finding Court after discussing the entire material on record, concluded that plaintiffs, two in number, are entitled to 1/6th share each. Thus, the appellate Court decided the appeal on merits. 21. In Gojer Bros. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ratan Lal Singh, AIR 1974 SC 1380 , the Apex Court held thus: “19. The fundamental reason of the rule that where there has been an appeal, the decree to be executed is the decree of the appellate court is that in such cases the decree of the trial court is merged in the decree of the appellate court. In course of time, this concept which was originally restricted to appellate decrees on the ground that an appeal is a continuation of the suit, came to be gradually extended to other proceedings like Revisions and even to proceedings before quasi judicial and executive authorities.” 22. Section 151 of CPC can only be applicable if there is no alternative remedy in the existing provision of law. Section 151 of CPC cannot be invoked as an alternative to file review. Section 151 of CPC can only be applicable if there is no alternative remedy in the existing provision of law. Section 151 of CPC cannot be invoked as an alternative to file review. Even if a wrong conclusion is arrived at or an incorrect decree is passed by the jurisdictional Court, the same is binding on the parties, until it is set aside by the appellate Court. 23. Though the learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner while arguing pointing out various irregularities in the order of the trial Court, since interlocutory application filed under Section 151 of CPC on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, seeking modification of decree passed in A.S.No.118 of 1990 on the file High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, is not maintainable, this Court is adverting to the other issues. 24. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. In fact, when a ground is raised in the counter, the trial Court ought to have framed point or issue. However, no such issue or point was framed by the trial Court. Since the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 151 of CPC, the order under revision if allowed to continue would amount to manifest injustice. Accordingly, the order dated 14.12.2022 in I.A.No.492 of 2021 in I.A.No.959 of 2012 in O.S.No.33 of 1988 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool is set aside. I.A.No.492 of 2021 in I.A.No.959 of 2012 in O.S.No.33 of 1988 stands dismissed. Since the preliminary decree was passed way back in the year 1989 and the same was modified by the High Court on 26.09.2003 and the SLP filed by the defendants was dismissed and the curative petition was also dismissed in the year 2012, the Court below shall expedite passing of final decree, strictly in accordance with law, adhering to the instructions given by this Court in circular R.O.C.No.560/OP/CELL/2022, dated 23.11.2022. 25. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.