The court's decision emphasized the finality of the dismissal of the appeal against the preliminary decree and the lack of further actions by the parties to challenge the final decree.

P.S. TEJI, J.

C.M. No. 30682/2017 (Directions)

1. By this application filed under Section 151 CPC, the applicant (respondent No. 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 3 and 5) seeks approval of proforma draft for proclamation of auction under Order 21 Rule 66 of CPC as directed vide order dated 26.04.2016 in R.F.A. No. 99/2006. The applicants sought the following prayers:-

(a) To allow the present application, inter-alia, confirming the above mentioned proposed terms

(b) To include any other terms or conditions to the above list that the court may deem fit in the interests of all the parties including the respondents;

(c) To approve and adopt the draft of proclamation of sale along with the proforma of the auction classified to be published in the Newspapers as mentioned in the above proposed terms and conditions, as required under Order 21 rule 66 CPC. Accordingly the said draft for proclamation may either be approved and accepted by this Hon’ble Court as it is being filed, or after necessary amendments and/or suggestions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;

(d) To issue any other direction and grant any relief in the interest of justice and for the benefit of all the parties.”

2. Respondent No. 2 appeared today. The applicant happens to be the respondents in the main appeal. The facts noticed in this case is and conditions, guidelines along with recommendations as allowed by the Court Commissioners. that the court below vide its judgment and decree dated 22nd November 2005 passed the preliminary decree with regard to holding the parties entitled to their shares and the plaintiff was declared owner of 1/7th share over the half of the suit property.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the R.F.A. No. 99/2006 was filed. The appeal came up for hearing on 10.02.2006 and notice was directed to be issued to the respondents. The matter took a long time and ultimately the matter came up for hearing on 19th February 2015 when this court observed that the appellant did not press the application for the stay (C.M. No. 2214/2006) and the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2007 accordingly. It was also observed that the trial court shall proceed with the matter to pass the final decree and appeal shall be taken up for hearing immediately after passing of the final decree. The record of the trial court was sent back and the trial court was directed to pass the final decree within a period of 8 months from that date and requisitioned the record back after passing the final decree.

4. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing on 19th November 2015, when it was observed that the appeal was filed against the preliminary decree for partition and there was no stay of passing the final decree. The trial court record was not received back by then and this court directed the Registry to find out the status of the final decree proceedings in the suit in the trial court and the trial court record was called back. The matter came up again on 25th February 2016 and the operative para reads as under: -

“It has been brought to the notice of this court that a final decree has been passed by the trial court and my learned predecessor had directed that after the passing of the final decree, any of the parties, if it is desirous of challenging the final decree, shall file additional grounds challenging the same. Parties are accordingly given an opportunity to file their additional grounds, if they intend to challenge the final decree. All the parties are directed to file their short synopsis not more than five pages along with list of judgments relied upon by them.”

5. Ultimately, the final judgment was delivered by this court on 26th April 2016 whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed. The relevant paragraphs 17 to 21 of the order are reproduced herein below:

17. Now remains the question of actual partition of the suit property by metes and bounds. In this regard, the learned trial Court has already observed that the suit property cannot be divid