JUDGMENT

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dtd. 11/8/2014 in I.A.No.233 of 2011 in I.A.No.143 of 1989 in O.S.No.35 of 1980 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

2. The petitioner is plaintiff and she had filed a suit O.P.No.106 of 1978 before Subordinate Judge, Narsaraopet which was renumbered as O.S.No.35 of 1980. The suit was filed seeking partition of plaint "A" and "B" schedule properties and allot 1/4th share to the petitioner and put her in possession among other reliefs. After contest, a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 29/4/1988. The Defendant Nos.16 to 18 thereupon had filed A.S.No.1887 of 1998 before this Hon'ble High Court questioning the preliminary decree. Vide Judgment and Decree dtd. 20/3/2009, this Court allowed the appeal and set-aside the preliminary decree and judgment.

3. On verification, it is noticed that the petitioner had filed Civil Appeal No.9546 of 2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India questioning the Judgment and Decree dtd. 20/3/2009 in A.S.No.1887 of 1998. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the merits of the case, passed a detailed judgment dtd. 19/1/2021, whereunder, the Civil Appeal was allowed and Judgment and decree in A.S.No.1887 of 1998 was set-aside. Consequently, the preliminary decree of the trial Court stood restored.

4. The facts on record disclose that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed I.A.No.143 of 1989 for passing final decree. An I.A. No.233 of 2011 was filed therein i.e. in I.A.No.143 of 1989 to condone the delay of 294 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C., to set aside the default order passed in final decree petition on 12/4/2010 and restore the same. The executing Court vide order dtd. 11/8/2014 rejected the application to condone the delay of 294 days in filing the petition and hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5. It is to be noted that the final decree proceedings can be initiated at any point of time and there is no limitation prescribed for initiating final decree proceedings. Once an application has been filed for passing final decree, it is the obligation of the Court to see that the final decree proceedings are concluded at the earliest and the rights declared in the preliminary decree are enjoyed by the respective parties. When there is no limitation prescribed for filing of final decree proceedings, the trial Court dismissing an application for condonation of delay is erroneous and unsustainable ( See Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, 2022 SCC online SC 737. at para 31).The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment considering the procedural hazards in C.P.C. and in passing of the final decree also opined that a separate application for drawing up the final decree is not required and that the trial courts should suo motu initiate proceedings for final decree. For ready reference, para 33 of the said judgment is extracted below:

"33. We are of the view that once a preliminary decree is passed by the Trial Court, the court should proceed with the case for drawing up the final decree suo motu. After passing of the preliminary decree, the Trial Court has to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC. The courts should not adjourn the matter sine die, as has been done in the instant case. There is also no need to file a separate final decree proceedings. In the same suit, the court should allow the concerned party to file an appropriate application for drawing up the final decree. Needless to state that the suit comes to an end only when a final decree is drawn. Therefore, we direct the Trial Courts to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC soon after passing of the preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the property, suo motu and without requiring initiation of any separate proceedings."

6. The concern of Hon'ble Supreme Court in delay