1. Petitioners are two among the contesting respondent is a Suit for Partition which is now pending in final decree proceedings. After passing of the preliminary decree the respondent/plaintiff moved two applications, one for amending the plaint and the other for amending the preliminary decree. Some mistakes have crept in the description over some of the items of suit properties with respect to their extent, survey, number etc. was his case to seek amendments as indicates above. However, such applications were moved at a time after the preliminary decree was confirmed in an appeal by this court.

2. Objections raised by the petitioners that the decree passed by the trial court having merged with the decree of appellate court the application for amendment could not be entertained by that court found approval with the learned Sub Judge which resulted in dismissing both applications. Common order passed by the learned Sub Judge in the two applications was challenged by the plaintiff before this court in two revisions which were disposed by Ext.P-8 order. Operative portion of Ext.P-8 order reads as follows:

The fact that the decree is confirmed in the appeal may not be a ground for dismissing the amendment. If the amendment sought for is against the decree confirmed by this court in appeal, the petitioner may not get a relief to that extent. But the court below ought to have considered whether the amendments sought for can be allowed or not. Likewise he ought to have considered the application for appointment of receiver and passed a speaking order. The court below could have allowed the application for amendment and granted time to the contesting respondents to file their additional written statement and then took a decision whether the relief now sought for can be granted in view of the decree passed by this court. Instead of that both petitions were dismissed. So I have no other option, but to set aside those orders and direct the court below to reconsider those applications in accordance with law.

3. Though the counsel on both sides concede that there is a factual error in Ext.P-8 order passed by this court inasmuch as stating that one among the applications was for appointment of a receiver which, in fact, was for amendment of the preliminary decree passed by the court and confirmed in appeal that appears to be not of much significance since a specific direction as seen from Ext.P-8 order, has been given only in respect of the application moved for amendment of the plaint. If such amendment is allowed the defendants have to be given an opportunity to file written statement and, then, the court has to take a decision whether the relief sought for could be granted is the purport of the decision rendered in Ext.P-8 order. All parties to the suit are bound by Ext.P-8 order. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that amendment canvassed for could not be entertained placing reliance on some judicial pronouncements rendered by this court so far as the parties to the suit are concerned, they are bound by Ext.P-8 order. Even otherwise, in case where there was any omission for conclusion of one or other items of joint property in the suit before passing of preliminary decree or non-allotment of a share to a party which he or she is entitled to, nothing prevents the court in entertaining application thereof and passing appropriate orders on its merit. A preliminary decree has been passed is no bar for passing further preliminary decree in the case till passing of final decree, if the situation demands so. So, in the present case, where the petitioners have got a case that there is some misdescription over some of the items of properties already included in the suit as joint properties under Ext.A-4 for division with respect to its extent, survey number and boundaries, the amendment sought for has to be considered on its merits. A preliminary decree has already been passed, the defendants have set up a plea