IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.77 of 2000 Jagdish Panda son of Late Gobind Panda, resident and P.O. Rangaon, P.S. Tarapur, Pargana Lakhanpur Munsafi and District Munger. ……Defendant no.6-Appellant-Appellant Versus 1. Md. Rasheed Advocate, son of Late Abdul Gafoor, resident of village and P.O. Bardel, P.S. Muffasil, Pargana Munsafi District Munger….Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. 2. Ajimuddin son of late Md. Azam alias Faikoo 3. Noor Jahan 4. Jarina Khatoon daughter of late Md. Azam @ Fakoo 5. Mostt. Zainab wife of late Md. Azim alias Faikoo 6. Sah Abdul Latif son of late Faida Hussain, all resident of village Masikpur, Lakhanpur, P.O. Tarapur, District Monghyr. ……Defendants 1st party-Respondents-Respondents. 7. Mumtaz Hussain son of late Azmat Hussain, resident of village Manikpur, Lakhanpur, P.O. Tarapur, District Monghyr. 8. Md. Israil alias Kalimuddin 9. Md. Sher Ali 10. Md. Qasim Ali, Sons of late Md. Israil, resident of Kabirpur, P.O. Nath Nagar, District Bhagalpur.. Defendants 2nd party-Respondents-Respondents. For the appellant : M/s Ashutosh Jha, Narendra Pandey and Bijay Kant Mishra, Advocates. For the respondents : None. ----------- 09/ 03.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendant no.6- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.107 of 1980 which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent-respondent for partition of his 4/9 share in the suit property. The said suit was decreed on contest against defendant no.6 and was decreed ex-parte against defendant nos.2, 3 and 4 vide judgment and decree dated 20.07.1985 by which 4/9 share was given to the plaintiff and 2/9 share was given to 2 defendant no.6 in the suit property and the remaining share was left for the remaining defendants. 4. The said preliminary decree was not challenged by anyone and accordingly final decree was prepared on the basis of the report of the Pleader Commissioner on 18.03.1990 against which defendant no.6 filed Title Appeal No.31 of 1990 which was allowed by Additional District Judge-VII, Munger vide his judgment and decree dated 01.07.1992 setting aside the final decree and directing appointment of another Pleader Commissioner and preparation of final decree afresh. 5. It transpires that after the preliminary decree passed in the suit dated 20.07.1985 which remained unchallenged, the plaintiff purchased 1/8th share of defendant nos.2, 3 and 4 by registered sale deed dated 07.01.1987. Furthermore, after the final decree was set aside by the lower appellate court and steps for appointment of Pleader Commissioner and preparation of fresh final decree was in process, the plaintiff filed an application on 18.03.1998 before the trial court for amendment of the preliminary decree by way of adding share purchased by the plaintiff from defendant nos.2, 3 and 4 to the share allotted to the plaintiff and carving out takhta accordingly. The said application although contested by defendant no.6 was allowed by Subordinate Judge-I, Munger vide his judgment dated 18.04.1998. 6. The said judgment of the trial court was challenged by defendant no.6 in Title Appeal No.18 of 1998 which was dismissed on contest by Additional District Judge-VII, Munger vide his judgment 3 and decree dated 29.11.1999. The aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below have been challenged by defendant no.6 in the instant second appeal. 7. It is not in dispute that plaintiff had purchased some share of defendant nos.2, 3 and 4 by a registered document after the preparation of preliminary decree. Furthermore, he had filed an application for amendment of the preliminary decree for adding the aforesaid purchased land into his share after the final decree proceeding was initiated afresh and was pending. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)