S.N.JHA, J.

1. This civil revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 26-8-94 passed by the Vth Subordinate Judge, Siwan in Title Partition Suit No. 160 of 1981 allowing the petition of defendants Ist party under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the Code) for inclusion of certain items of property in the written statement and the preliminary decree. The defendants by the same very petition had also prayed for deletion of certain other items of property from the preliminary decree. The Court below, however, did not accede to that prayer.

2. It is not necessary to set out the facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of this revision. In fact, no argument on the factual aspect of the case was made by the counsel for either party. Arguments were made on a question of law, whether in a partition suit, after preliminary decree is passed, addition of further items of property for partition by metes and bounds is permissible or not.

3. Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court has no jurisdiction to add to the schedule of the properties which are subject-matter of the partition suit as mentioned in the preliminary decree. According to him, it would require a full-fledged adjudication which is not possible at the stage of preparation of the final decree. He placed reliance on Muthangi Ayyana V/s. Muthangi Jaggarao, AIR 1977 SC 292; Awadhendra Prasad Narayan Singh V/s. Raghubansmani Prasad Narayan Singh, AIR 1979 Patna 50 and Sajani Bewa V/s. Kartik Sahu, AIR 1981 Orissa 157.

4. Mr. Shashi Shekher Dwivedi, learned counsel for the defendants-opposite party submitted that the suit for partition remains pending even after passing of the preliminary decree and it is open to the Court to include further items of property and divide them by metes and bounds in course of preparation of final decree in the same proceeding without compelling the parties to file fresh suit for partition with respect to these items of property. He submitted that the law contemplates and permits more than one preliminary decree in suits for partition. He placed reliance on Lachmi Narayan Marwari V/s. Balmakund Marwary, AIR 1942 Privy Council 198; L. Guran Ditta V/s. T. R. Ditta, AIR 1935 Privy Council 12; Gopal Krishna Pillai V/s. Meenakshi Ayal, AIR 1967 SC 155; Phoolchand V/s. Gopal Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1470; Syed Ekramuddin V/s. Syed Mahamed Ali, AIR 1986 Andhra Pradesh 267; B. N. Thiagarajan V/s. B. N. Sundaravelu, AIR 1972 Madras 216; Ghanashyam Martha V/s. Brundaban Pradhan, AIR 1977 Orissa 154; Polireddi Rama Subbareddi V/s. Polireddi Naga Krishna Reddy, AIR 1982 NOC 197 (AP) and Bhagabati Sahu V/s. Trilochan Sahu, AIR 1990 NOC 21 (Orissa).

5. The decision in Muthangi Ayyana V/s. Muthangi Jaggarao, AIR 1977 SC 292, relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, has no application in this case. In that case the point for consideration was whether the Court can amend or go behind the preliminary decree in partition suit. The Supreme Court held that it is not open to the Court to amend the preliminary decree on a matter already concluded by the preliminary decree. In other words, if an issue between the parties has been decided by a preliminary decree such decision cannot be amended later in the course of preparation of final decree. The decision in Sajani Bewa V/s. Kartik Sahu, AIR 1981 Orissa 157, is also of little help. In that case the Court rejected the prayer for inclusion of further items of property on the ground of delay.

6. The decision in Awadhendra Prasad Narayan Singh V/s. Raghubansmani Prasad Narayan Singh, AIR 1979 Patna 50, however, appears to be relevant to the point at issue in the present case. In that case the defendants wanted to include a house situate at Rajgir within the purview of the final decree proceeding which was opposed by the plaintiff. This Court held,"No authority has been placed before me to show that even without the plaintiff ask