JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The defendants in a suit for partition have preferred the instant appeal against the ex parte final decree of partition passed therein.

2. The learned trial Judge, in the preliminary decree, declared the shares of the parties, which has not been challenged. Subsequently, allegedly without notice to the defendants, the Partition Commissioner, appointed by the trial court behind the back of the defendants, conducted the commission work and filed his final report. It is contended that the Partition Commissioner was never examined, nor was any opportunity of examining the Partition Commissioner afforded to the present defendants/appellants.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants places reliance on Order No. 88 dated March 8, 2018 passed in the suit, whereby the Partition Commissioner was directed to give notice to both sides before holding the commission work.

4. Learned counsel also places reliance on the Partition Commissioner’s report itself, where it was categorically stated by the Partition Commissioner that he went to the locale after due service of notice through Registered Post with A/D and the lawyer of the plaintiff and the plaintiff himself identified the suit plot and the plaintiff handed over to him the xerox copy of the plaint and xerox copy of order No. 17 dated June 6, 2006 as well as copies of the preliminary decree and certified copy of a partition deed.

5. It is submitted that it will be evident from the said recording in the Commissioner’s report that no notice was served on the defendants/appellants.

6. It is next argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the Partition Commissioner omitted to allot any shares to the parties in LR Dag No. 160, which is a part of the suit property, but allotted shares in LR Dag No. 140, which is not a part of the suit property. Hence, the Commissioner’s report is palpably vitiated on such count alone, if not on other counts.

7. It is next argued that as per the average, taking into account the number of parties, each party was to be allotted about 2 Cottahs 10 Chittaks of land whereas much more than the said area was allotted to the plaintiff himself.

8. That apart, it is argued that the the cream portion of the property comprised of a structure was allotted to the plaintiff, which was not not only more than the average area applicable to each of the parties but is comprised of bastu property. In most of the plots, no portion of the pond was allotted to the plaintiff, but the same was left to the allocation of the defendants, which is another illegality in the Commissioner’s report as per the appellants.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants takes the court painstakingly through the Commissioner’s report and the map annexed thereto, pointing out that the map depicts about 536 square feet allocation of the plaintiff/respondent whereas as per the body of the Commissioner’s report, apparently 380 square feet was to be allotted to the respondent.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the final decree has not been drawn up upon due stamp being affixed in terms of the final decree and as such, there is no final decree in the eye of law.

11. It is further contended that the respondent took out an application for amendment of the plaint schedule to incorporate LR Dag No. 140, which was not permitted by the trial court.

12. Being aggrieved, a revisional application was preferred, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court holding that since the final decree had been passed and an appeal has been preferred before the Division Bench, no interference was called for.

13. As such, it is argued that the revisional application was not disposed of on merits and this Court ought to reopen the said order refusing the amendment application of the respondent and to allow the same in order to do complete justice between the parties.

14. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on re