Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The short question of law to be determined in this case is whether this appeal lies in view of Section 97 of C.P.C.

3. The facts relevant for determining this appeal may be summarised as follows :--

The respondent No. 1 in this case had instituted a partition suit bearing No. T.S. (P) 174 of 1992.before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura against the appellant and other pro-forma respondents for partition of the suit property claiming 3/9 share therein. The appellant contested the suit by filing a written statement of defence. After hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) passed a preliminary decree on 18-5-1994 holding that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to get 1/3 shares of the suit property while the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are entitled to have 1/9 shares each of the suit property. It was also pointed out therein that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to file a petition before the learned Civil Judge after the expiry of six months to draw up the final decree and to appoint