The petitioner challenges the order dated 22-9-2005 passed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kodad.

2. Petitioner filed O.S.No.260 of 2003 against the 5th respondent herein, for the relief of partition of the suit schedule properties into two equal parts and allotment of a share to her. A preliminary decree was passed on 12-2-2004. Thereafter, the petitioner filed l.A.No.244 of 2004 for final decree. The trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner, and he, in turn, submitted a report, and the parties did not file any objections to it. The trial Court passed a final decree on 6-10-2004, in terms of the report of the Commissioner.

3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed an application before the trial Court, for impleading them as defendants 2 to 5, in the suit. They claimed interest in the suit schedule property, and intended to oppose .the proceedings. Through the order under revision, the trial Court allowed the l.A. Hence, this C.R.P.

4. Sri Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the final decree was passed in the suit, it was not open to the trial Court to implead respondents 1 to 4 herein, as defendants 2 to 5. He contends that for all practical purposes, the Court had become functus officio with the passing of final decree, and the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law.

5. Sri K. Narasimha Chary, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, on the other hand, submits that his clients filed the l.A., much before the final decree was passed. He contends that the docket order passed by the trial Court on 6-1 0-2004 in l.A.No.244 of 2004 cannot be said to be a final decree, and the same was taken note of, by the trial Court, when it passed the order under revision. He submits that the possession of the property was not yet delivered in terms of the so called final decree, and till such a time, it is competent for the trial Court to implead the interested persons, as parties to the suit.

6. The facts have already been stated, briefly. There is no dispute as to the stages, through which, the suit passed. It is true that respondents 1 to 4 herein filed I.A.No.618 of 2004, under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., to get themselves impleaded as defendants 2 to 5 in the suit, at a time whel1 the final decree proceedings were pending. For one reason or the other, the application was not taken up, before 6-10-2004, on which day; the trial Court closed I.A.No.244 of 2004, which was filed for passing a final decree.

7. It is settled principle of law that, a suit for partition shall be treated as pending before a Court, till the final decree is passed. In the instant case, the preliminary decree was passed on 12-2-2004, and the petitioner filed I.A.No.244 of 2004, for final decree. Commissioner was appointed and a report was submitted by him, dividing the property to equal parts, and allotting one part to the petitioner, and the other part to the 5th respondent. No objections were received from the petitioner, or the 5th respondent. Therefore, the trial Court passed the following order in I.A.No.244 of 2004:

"Commissioner report filed. No objection reported. I.A. closed."

8. Though I.A.No.618 of2004 was pending before the trial Court by 6-10-2004, no orders were passed therein by that date, for one reason or the other. At a later stage, the trial Court took up this application and ordered it, by taking the view that the final decree cannot be said to have been passed, unless the Court has specifically allotted the shares of each party. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 submits that the final decree cannot be said to have been passed, unless the parties to the suit have been put in possession of their respective shares.

9. For examining these aspects, the scope of preliminary and final decree passed in a suit for partition needs to be noted. A suit for partition falls into the category of proceedings in which a preliminary decree and thereafter, a final decree are to be passed. There may be