( 1 ) THOUGH the matter is listed under the caption "for Admission", with consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the main Civil Revision Petition itself is disposed of by this order.

( 2 ) HEARD both sides.

( 3 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 12-11-2002, passed by the Senior Civil Judge at adoni, Kurnool District, rejecting the application in I. A. No. 125 of 2002 in O. S. No. 38 of 1965, filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the decree in o. S. No. 38 of 1965 specifying the entitlement of the share of each of the petitioners and the respondents therein, in the suit schedule properties.

( 4 ) THE petitioners are the defendants (brought on record as legal representatives of defendant No. 3) and the respondent is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for partition.

( 5 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

( 6 ) THE undisputed facts are that the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/13th share in the suit schedule properties on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Adoni, Kurnool District. The said suit was dismissed. The matter was carried in appeal in A. S. No. 95 of 1968 on the file of District Judge at Kurnool. The lower appellate Court, while allowing the appeal by judgment, dated 7-7-1970, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and passed a preliminary decree in the suit and apportioned the share of the plaintiff alone in the suit schedule properties. Later, the plaintiff filed an application in I. A. No. 192 of 1986 to pass a final decree and the trial Court has allowed the said application and passed a final decree. Subsequently, it was noticed by the defendants that in the preliminary decree, passed by the District Court at Kurnool, the lower appellate Court had apportioned the share of the plaintiff alone in the suit schedule properties without any apportionment in favour of the defendants. Therefore, an application had been filed by the defendants seeking necessary amendment of the final decree before the lower appellate Court and the same was returned on the ground that it was only the trial Court, which was competent to amend the final decree. Accordingly, the defendants have filed the present application before the trial Court seeking amendment of decree in O. S. No. 38 of 1965 specifying the entitlement of the share of each of the defendants and the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties. The trial Court having found that entertaining present application amounts to amending the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, which is not permissible, eventually rejected the same. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

( 7 ) THE short question that falls for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the trial Court has got jurisdiction to amend the decree passed by the first appellate Court exercising jurisdiction under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if so, under what circumstances?

( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this Court in zahiruddin v. Abdul Sattar, 1981 (2) Andh lt 470, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court corrected the mistake, which crept in the decree inadvertently. It was a case where the learned single Judge while allowing the appeal granted a decree for the first time but while doing so, inadvertently passed the decree insofar as the declaratory part of it. The said judgment was carried on in appeal and a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the same. Thereafter, noticing the mistake in passing the decree by the learned single Judge, an application had been made before the first appellate court for amendment of the decree. In the said circumstances, the amendment of the decree made by the first appellate Court was found to be correct. The other facts and circumstances of the said case and the reasoning thereof are not relevant. T