The main legal point established is that Order II Rule 2 of CPC is not applicable to the final decree petition, and the trial Court can pass more than one final decree in a suit for partition and separate possession.

JUDGMENT

Ashok S Kinagi, J. - Respondents No.16 to 18 have filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 16.7.2018 on I.A.No.7 passed in FDP No.6/2011 by the First Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikodi.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :

That the husband of the petitioner No.1(a) filed a suit in O.S.No.84/1967 for partition and separate possession on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Chikodi. The suit came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.6.1969 and awarded 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants in O.S.No.84/1967 preferred R.A.No.258/1969 before the learned Civil Judge, Belagavi. The appeal came to be dismissed on 15.6.1971. Thereafter, in the year 1988 the original plaintiff filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.46/1995 on the file of the Munsiff and JMFC Court, Nipani to execute the preliminary decree for partition. The said execution petition was treated as a final decree petition in respect of the house property. The trial Court allowed the final decree petition and final decree was drawn on 6.8.1996 in respect of house property.

3.1. That, on 4.7.2011, petitioners filed FDP No.6/2011 before the learned Civil Judge, Chikodi for drawing up final decree in terms of the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.84/1967 dated 27.6.1969 in respect of the agricultural lands. During the pendency of the said final decree proceedings, the defendants filed RSA No.5861/2012 challenging the judgment and preliminary decree passed in the above said suit and also the judgment of the First Appellate Court passed in R.A.No.258/1969 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi. This Court dismissed the second appeal on the ground of delay.

3.2. In the FDP proceedings (6/2011), respondents No.16 to 18 filed an application for impleading them as respondents. The trial court allowed the application and they were arrayed as Respondents No.16 to 18.

3.3. Respondents No.16 to 18 filed I.A.7 under Section 151 of C.P on the ground that the final decree petition for drawing up of final decree is not maintainable and further contended that the law prohibits from drawing up of more than one final decree and hence contended that the final decree petition filed by petitioners is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the final decree proceeding.

3.4. The petitioners have filed objections to the said application contending that the application filed by respondents No.16 to 18 is not maintainable either in law or on facts and circumstances of the case. Further they have contended that the application filed by respondents No.16 to 18 before the learned Munsiff Court is only with an intention to delay the proceedings.

3.5. The trial Court after considering the contents of the application and objections filed by the parties dismissed the application-I.A.No.7 filed by respondents No.16 to 18 vide order dated 16.7.2018.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.7.2018 passed in FDP No.6/2011 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikodi, respondents No.16 to 18 have filed this revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.16 to 18 and also the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for respondents No.16 to 18 (revision petitioners herein) submitted that the second FDP is not maintainable as the petitioners have (respondents 1 to 5 herein) have not reserved their right to file a further petition for drawing up of a final decree and on the said ground the petition is not maintainable. He further contended that the petition is hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC and on this ground also the second petition is not maintainable. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners (respondents 1 to 5 herein) submitted that Order II Rule 2 of CPC is not applicable for the present case on