JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition, eviction, rendition of accounts, sale of the common schedule property and allied prayers. During the pendency of the suit, the parties have entered into a settlement on 13th December, 2017 and by an order dated 15th December, 2017, the settlement arrived between the parties was accepted and a preliminary decree was passed. In terms of the order dated 15th December, 2017 and the settlement dated 13th December 2017, on 22nd January 2019, a preliminary decree was drawn.

2. After the preliminary decree was drawn in terms of settlement, the plaintiffs have filed an application being G.A No. 4 of 2019 (Old G.A No. 803 of 2019) praying for appointment of Commissioner for effecting final partition in terms of the preliminary decree dated 22nd January, 2019 and drawing up a final decree.

3. By an order dated 28th November, 2019, this Court has passed the following order:

“This is an application for final decree to be passed in terms of this preliminary decree dated 15th December, 2017. Under the said preliminary decree the shares of the respective parties have been allotted. It is submitted that in the preliminary decree the allotment as to which property of the estate will go to which particular party has also been specified. It is further submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that currently there is an arrear of about Rs. 50 lakhs on account of municipal rates and taxes payable towards the estate.

Mr. Utpal Bose, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submits that there has been an agreement between the parties that 50 % of the arrear municipal rates and taxes of the estate shall be paid by his clients and the balance 50 % shall be paid by the defendant nos. 1 and 4 represented by Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate. Mr. Ghosh on instruction does not deny that an agreement in respect of payment of the arrear municipal rates and taxes as submitted by Mr. Bose has been arrived at between the two groups.

If find that the properties have been allocated to the parties under the preliminary decree. The only part left out is vacating the portions under the occupation of the respective parties and shifting to the portion allocated to them under the preliminary decree. If the preliminary decree is enforced, since the same has not been challenged and there being specific allocation under the same agony of the parties will subside and the final decree will be a matter of course without much expenses being made towards Commissioner's remuneration and Valuer's fees which otherwise has to be spent in the event the final decree has to be passed after completion of all formalities. Since the two groups have primarily agreed upon payment of the arrears of municipal rates and taxes of the estate, let such exercise be completed within a period of two months from date. It is expected that either in the meantime or immediately after payment of the arrears of municipal rates and taxes the parties should shift to their respective allocated portions under the preliminary decree after vacating the portion now under their occupation. It is made clear that vacating the portion under occupation of the parties and shifting to the allocated portion should be done simultaneously as far as practical to avoid any multiplicity of proceeding in future. So far as other aspects of the preliminary decree are concerned, let this matter appear on 5th February, 2019.”

4. Subsequent to the order passed by this Court dated 28th November, 2019, several correspondences were made and exchanged