1. This order shall dispose of the above writ petitions namingly Writ Petition No. 1625 of 1992 and W.P. No. 1153 of 1993. The brief facts as to how this litigation has come to this Court are as under.

2. A civil suit was filed by Shiv Prasad. This was dismissed by the trial Court. On an appeal having been preferred before the appellate Court, a decree was passed in favour of Shiv Prasad. The appellate Court is Court of II Additional District Judge, Shivpuri. Against that, decree, an appeal was preferred in this Court. That appeal was dismissed in limine. This happened on 19th of June, 1990. Against this, a Special Leave Petition was preferred. This Special Leave Petition No. 15341 of 1990, was dismissed on 14th January, 1991.

3. After this litigation came to an end, the plaintiff respondent Shiv Prasad preferred a petition seeking amendment of the decree. This application was filed before the Court of Additional Judge. This was partly allowed. This has led to the filing of two petitions by both the sides.

4. The respondents defendants who has filed petition No. 1153 of 1993 submits that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to order amendment of the decree. According to him, only that Court which passed the final decree would be competent to amend the same. According to him, only the Supreme Court of India, has jurisdiction to amend the decree. In any case, it is submitted that this Court having dismissed the appeal against the decree could be amended by this Court alone.

5. Reliance has been placed on a decision reported as Nishabar Singh v. Local Gurdwara Committee Manjit Sahib, Kamal and another, AIR 1986 P & H 402. The above judgment does make mention of the fact that if the decree of the trial Court is affirmed or modified by appellate Court then appellate Court would alone would have jurisdiction. The relevant observation is as under:

"The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the Local Gurdwara Committee for whole of the land. Before the decision of the application the appellate Court modified the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff qua half of the property. It is well settled that the decree of the trial Court after decision of the appeal merges with that of the appellate. Court. After the modification of the decree by the appellate Court, the trial Court was left with no jurisdiction to amend the decree."

6. But the question in this case is whether in view of the provisions contained in section 153-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the reasoning given in the aforementioned judgment would be attracted or not. The above provision makes it apparent that if an appeal is dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C., then the jurisdiction to amend the decree would be with the Court which passed the decree finally. This change was brought about by the Act of 1976. The statement of objections and reasons makes it apparent that there was some divergence of view on this object. The view taken by the Bombay and Patna High Court on the one side and Allahabad & Andhra Pradesh High Courts was totally divergent. Section 153-A was inserted to remove this divergence. It has now been categorically laid down that when an appeal has been dismissed summarily then the jurisdiction to amend the decree shall remain with the Court which had passed the decree after hearing both the sides. Provisions of section 153-A & Statement of object of reasons be noticed. This reads as under:

"153A. Power to amend decree or order where appeal is summarily dismissed.- where an Appellate Court dismisses an appeal under rule 11 of the 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."

OBJECTS AND REASONS

"Sections 152 and