IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1671 of 2008 Rama Shankar Singh & Ors Versus Ramnaresh Singh & Ors ----------- 9. 27.09.2011 Heard Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.Dronacharya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 1. The civil revision application has been filed against the order dated 29.07.2008 passed in Final Decree No.02/2003 by Sub Judge I, Bagha, West Champaran rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners praying to drop the final decree proceeding and recall earlier orders passed in that proceeding. 2. There is no dispute that there was a partition suit between the opposite parties and the vendors of the petitioners, in which the land claimed by the petitioners had also been the subject matter of proceeding. From the records it appears that the dispute had travelled up to this Court in F.A.No.838/1978 wherein the petitioners also filed a petition for getting themselves impleaded as parties on the basis of their purchase of 2 Katha 8 dhurs land of Plot No.1696 during the pendency of the appeal. It appears from the judgment dated 14.11.2000 in F.A.No.838/1978 that the appeal was disposed of in terms of compromise between the parties thereto and in the judgment 2 there is a direction with regard to the claim of the present petitioners in paragraph no.12 which is as follows:- “……It is made clear that right, title, interest and possession of aforesaid purchasers in respect of 2 kathas 8 dhurs of plot no.1696 is not affected in any manner….” 3. From the perusal of the judgment in F.A.No. 838/1978 it becomes apparent that the partition suit had been decreed in part on contest against Defendant 2nd Party and on compromise against defendant First Party. From the said judgment it also appears that a compromise petition vide I.A.No.1669 had been filed in that appeal stating therein that though the suit had been disposed of in terms of compromise between the parties in the trial court but the parties had agreed to certain changes in the allotment and therefore the prayer was made for disposal of the appeal in terms of the compromise indicated in the interlocutory application. All the parties to the appeal had accepted this judgment passed in first appeal which had not been challenged by any of them. 4. The plaintiff filed a petition before the court below for preparation of the final decree on the basis of the compromise decree abovementioned and made a prayer to the court to prepare a final decree in respect of the suit lands mentioned in 3 detail in Schedule II of the petition which also included the lands purchased by the present petitioners. It appears that the court below had appointed pleader commissioners on earlier two occasions but did not accept their reports and thereafter another pleader commissioner was appointed for the third time who had submitted his report. However before the acceptance of the report the objection has been filed by the present petitioners praying therein to recall the earlier orders and further to drop the final decree proceeding. After hearing the parties this petition of the petitioners has been rejected by the court below by the impugned order. 5. From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the dispute between the parties to this revision application had been finally settled by the judgment and decree of this Court in F.A.No.838/1978 and the findings, directions and the decree passed therein are binding upon the parties. This Court in the concluding paragraph of the judgment in the aforesaid first appeal had clearly and specifically directed that the “right, title, interest and possession of aforesaid petitioners in respect of 2 Katha, 8 dhurs of land of Plot No.1696 is not affected in any manner”. There appears to be no ambiguity in this direction and as such any further proceeding pursuant to this judgment and 4 decree will have to be in accordance with the directions including this direction. It is well settled that the final decree is necessarily to be in accordance with preliminary decree and therefore the court below while preparing the final decree will have to keep in mind the specific direction even with regard to the purchase of 2 Katha, 8 dhurs of land of Plot No.1696 by the revision petitioners. 6. The prayer made by the petitioners in the court below to close the final decree proceeding and recall of the earlier orders appointing pleader commissioner for working out partition obviously cannot be granted. There is no impediment in the preparation of final decree in pursuance to a compromise decree where specific allotments on the spot is yet to be done. As a result, this civil revision application is disposed of with the direction to the court below to proceed with the final decree proceeding keeping in view, the specific direction of this Court in paragraph 12 of its judgment in F.A.No.838/1978 relating to the right, title, interest and possession of the petitioners over their purchase of 2 katha 8dhurs of land of plot no.1696, which is not to be affected in any manner. Nitesh (V.Nath, J.)