1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7684 OF 2008 Smt.Laxmibai Baburao Wakhare ...Petitioner vs. Raman Gopinath Wakhare & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Rameshwar Gite for the petitioner None for the respondents. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 12, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner filed a suit for partition. The suit was decreed and it was held that the petitioner was entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property. Preliminary decree of partition was passed. An application was made for final decree. The final decree proceeding was disposed of by the trial Court against which an Appeal was preferred by the petitioner. On 30th July 2004, the District Court set aside the order passed in the final decree application and remanded the final decree application to the Trial Court. The District court directed that the Taluka Inspector of Land Records shall be appointed as a Court Commissioner to suggest the scheme for partition. After the order of remand was passed by the District Court, it appears that a Mediator was appointed. The Mediator submitted the failure report. Thereafter, by order dated 16th July 2005, the learned trial Judge appointed Taluka Inspector of Land Records as a Court Commissioner to suggest the partition. Accordingly, a report was submitted by the Court Commissioner suggesting partition to which an objection was raised. By further order passed by the trial Court, the objection was overruled and the report of the Taluka Inspector of Land Records was accepted. The said order was passed by the trial 2 Court after considering the objections raised by the petitioner. Thereafter, an application was made by the petitioner seeking permission to adduce the evidence and to examine the Taluka Inspector of Land Records. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order . 2 After having considered the submissions, I find no merit in the petition. An order has been made by trial Court accepting the report of the Court Commissioner suggesting partition in a particular manner. The matter will be governed by Rule 14 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. In view of sub rule 3 of Rule 14 of Order XXVI of the said Code, now the trial Court will have to pass a decree in accordance with the report of the Court Commissioner. The actual partition can be effected only after the decree is passed. After the decree is passed, the petitioner can always prefer an appeal challenging the final decree and in the said Appeal, the petitioner can always challenge the order of the trial Court accepting the report of the Court Commissioner. In view of section 105 of the said Code, the petitioner can challenge all orders passed by the trial Court in final decree application including the impugned order. Therefore, at this stage, no interference is called for. 3 Subject to what is observed above, Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE