Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

The defendants have filed this First Appeal against the judgment and Final Decree dated 5.4.1977 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-1st, Muzaffarpur in Partition Suit No. 11 of 1958 whereby the learned court below accepted the Pleader Commissioner’s report as there was no objection to it.

2. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that while passing the final decree, the court below has not considered the settled principle of partition and simply accepted the Pleader Commissioner’s report without assigning any reason. The parties were allotted different chaks in Chakbandi preceding but the Pleader Commissioner upset the said chaks. The court below would not have accepted the report of the Pleader Commissioner as it was filed belatedly and without following the direction of the Court given in the preliminary judgment and decree. A fictitious map was prepared and was filed without giving the correct picture of physical feature of the agricultural land.

3. The learned counsel further submitted that the allotment of Takhta is wrong, mala-fide as the Pleader Commissioner was in collusion with the plaintiffs. He has not made correct valuation of different plots and has also not considered the convenience of the parties. All road side lands have been allotted to the plaintiffs causing loss to the defendants.

4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, in fact, all these points are being raised for the first time before this Court without any basis. No objection was filed by the appellants in the court below. Moreover, except general plea nothing has been brought on record by the appellants to substantiate his case. On these grounds the learned counsel submitted that the judgment and decree cannot be interfered with. As such First Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. In view of the above submissions of the parties, it appears that the only point which arises for consideration in this First Appeal is whether the judgment and decree is sustainable in the eye of law or not ?

6. It is admitted fact that the Pleader Commissioner has submitted his report before the Court below and thereafter sufficient time was granted to the parties for filing objection. No objection was filed by the appellants. Ultimately, on 25.2.1977 the court below accepted the Pleader Commissioner’s report and directed that final decree be prepared and the report shall form part of the decree. From perusal of the Pleader Commissioner’s report it appears that the Pleader Commissioner visited the spot and then a draft Raibandi was prepared. The parties were invited to file objection to the Raibandi. Only defendant no.3 filed objection .After hearing both the parties on objection, the Raibandi was made final after making the valuation of the plots. The parties also filed their petitions showing their convenience and then the Pleader Commissioner heard them and considered the convenience of the parties and has made the allotment of the lands to the different parties.

7. After acceptance of the Pleader Commissioner’s report the defendants filed objection to the said Pleader Commissioner’s report on 8.3.1977 and prayed for recall of the same. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 filed separate objection on 22.3.1977. It is settled principle of law that the decree cannot be recalled. Therefore, no order was passed by the court below. So far the objections raised by the appellants are concerned; all these points are related to the fact. To prove the fact, as alleged by the appellants, there is no evidence on record. Moreover, when there was no objection there was no question of adducing the evidence. In such view of the matter on these general grounds it is very difficult to record any finding regarding the convenience of the parties or valuation of the property or allotment in the road side.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Rajesh Chandra Jha v. State of Bih