JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - In a suit for partition, the plaintiff has applied for a preliminary decree in respect of the properties described in Schedules A and B of the plaint.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that, the shares amongst the parties are admitted. The defendant No.1 series have raised a specious plea with regard to the schedules of the properties involved in the suit for partition. The Court has the jurisdiction to pass a preliminary decree without identifying the properties involved in the suit. In support of such contentions, he has relied upon ( Bimal Kumar & Anr. v. Shakuntala Debi & Ors., (2012) 3 SCC 548 ), ( Heir of Barot Dansang Hirji & Ors. v. Barot Kanji Hirji & Ors., (1998) AIR Gujarat 27 ), ( T. Ramaswami Aiyar v. T. Subramania Aiyar, (1923) AIR Madras 147 ), ( Smt. Gita Dey & Ors. v. Smt. Nalinibala Dey & Ors.,2014 2 HCC(Cal) 230 ), ( Smt. Gita Dey & Ors. v. Smt. Nalinibala Dey & Ors., (2015) 1 CalHN 688 ) and ( R.B.S.S. Munnalal & Ors. v. S.S. Rajkumar & Ors., (1962) AIR SC 1493 ).

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has relied upon Order XX Rule 18 and Order XXVI Rules 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure,