1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO:45/2008 (Mr. Subhash s/o Vasant Sathe and anr. vs. Mr.Vijay Sathe and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... Mr. S S Sanyal ,Adv. for petititioners CORAM: A .H. JOSHI,J. DATED: 02nd JUNE, 2008. *** 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr S S Sanyal for the petitioners. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by order passed below Exh.9 declining to dismiss the proceedings initiated by the respondents/decree holders for passing a final decree. 3. Reliance is placed by the petitioners on the reported judgment in the case of Monotosh Kumar vs. Amarendranath Shaw { 2000 AIR SCW 1546}. 4. Learned trial Judge, after discussing the judgments cited at the Bar and oral submissions, recorded findings which read as follows :- “...............A final decree proceeding does not originate in itself but follows a preliminary decree already passed in a decree determining the rights and interest of the parties in relation to the land. The latter does not require a separate application by the decree holder for drawing up the final decree but this is the function of the court therefore there is no limitation for the final decree 2 application in case a suit for partition. The applicants application for passing a final decree is a sort of reminder to the trial court to pass a final decree.” 5. The above -quoted findings are not shown to be erroneous. The judgment relied upon by the petitioners refer to a contingency which entitles the party to apply for finalisation of a decree and the said is an eventuality in the judgment relied upon where the decree an application for finalisation of a decree was to be made in the event of default. The said judgment does not operate even as a simile, much less as a precedent. The impugned order is perfectly within the powers and jurisdiction of the trial Court. It does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. 6. No interference is called for. Civil Revision Application is dismissed. JUDGE sahare