IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.620 of 2010 Nageshwar Singh @ Nageshwar Prasad Singh Versus Anjani Kumar Singh @ Kishor Ku ---------------------------------- 10 9-9-2011 Heard Mr. Dhrub Narain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. S. N. Verma , learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 26-5-2010 by which the learned court below has allowed the prayer of the applicant therein and directed for preparation of final decree. There is no dispute that there was a suit for partition between the parties and that suit has ended into a compromise decree by order dated 13-3-1980 passed in T.S.No. 73 of 1979 by Subordinate Judge I, Munger. A copy of the order dated 13-3-1980 and the compromise petition have been annexed with the revision petition. Thereafter, in July 2009 a petition was filed on behalf of the sons of the original plaintiff(since deceased) praying for preparation of final decree. The petitioner, who was defendant in T.S.No. 73 of 1979, filed an objection petition resisting the prayer made by the plaintiff-opposite parties 2 for preparation of the final decree. By the impugned order the learned court below after having heard the parties and after considering the merits of the objection, as raised by the defendant- petitioner, has concluded as follows: “ … … I find and hold that the petition for preparation of Final Decree is maintainable as per terms of compromise petition dated 12-2-80 in its letter and spirit…..” The instant revision application has been filed challenging the validity of the aforesaid order of the court below. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the compromise petition in the present case must be taken to be the full and final disposal of the dispute regarding partition between the parties and in that view of the matter there was no requirement for preparation of final decree, as directed. Placing the compromise petition as annexed with the revision application, it has been further emphasized that nothing more was left to be done in terms of Order 20 Rule 18(2) C.P.C. and therefore for all purposes the compromise decree is the final decree and cannot be treated as preliminary decree. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in the case of Md. Sanjer Ali & ors. Vs. Bibi 3 Hasina Khatoon & ors., reported in 2007(3) PLJR 712. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, however, contended that there is no prohibition in preparation of final decree if it is in accordance with the compromise decree already passed and there can be no legal impediment in issuing such direction before the learned court below which is based on legal and valid ground. It has further been submitted that the substantial justice must be done by the courts and by the impugned order the learned court below has done nothing more that to issue direction for preparation of final decree in accordance with law and the reliance has also been placed on a decision in the case of Chairman & ano. Vs. Mahado Prasad & others, reported in 1990(1)PLJR 92. On a perusal of the impugned order and hearing the rival contentions of the parties, it appears that the learned court below has held the prayer for preparation of final decree , as made by the plaintiff-opposite parties, to be maintainable. There is nothing in the impugned order even to suggest that the final decree supposed to be prepared would be against the compromise decree rather the above quoted portion of the impugned order clearly establishes 4 that the learned court below was conscious of the legal position and has, accordingly, held that the final decree is to be prepared as per the terms of the compromise petition in its letter and spirit. No legal infirmity in the impugned order could be established and as such there is no merit in the revision application. This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)