S. K. PHAUJDAR, J.

Learned counsel for both the sides are present. It is stated that respondent No. 1 is dead, but no substitution has been made. It is gathered that it was a partition suit and all the parties interested in the partition are already arrayed as plaintiffs or the defendants. Under these circumstances, substitution in this revision application may not be necessary for final decision of the present ap plication.

2. At the instance of the present revisionists a suit for partition was filed con cerning three properties in Uttar Pradesh and one in West Bengal. The trial Court recorded a preliminary decree in respect of the three properties in Uttar Pradesh but refused to allow partition of the west Bengal property. This order in so far as it concerns refusal of partition of the West Bengal properly was challenged by the present plaintiff in this High Court in an appeal which fact is not disputed. The appeal, I am told, is still pending.

3. In the meanwhile the plaintiffs (present revisionists) moved an application before the trial Court for partition by metes and bounds of the three properties of Uttar Pradesh. An objection was taken by the present respondents who contend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document