( 1 ) THE appellant-plaintiff has preferred this appeal against an order dated 10th May, 1972 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Sagar, in Misc. Civil appeal No. 21 of 1969.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of this appeal are that the appellant Bhagwansingh along with two others had filed Civil Suit No. 23-A of 1951 against the present two respondents with nine others for partition of certain agricultural lands which were held by them jointly. After the trial of the suit, the trial Court vide its order dated 24-1-1955 passed a preliminary decree for partition with the direction that the decree shall be transferred to the Collector under Section 54, read with Order XX, Rule 18 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure for effecting the partition. It is an admitted fact that after the Collector partitioned the property, a final decree for partition was passed by the Civil Court on 25-1-1960 in accordance with its decision. As it appears from the record that khasra No. 520/1 was allotted to the respondents in lieu of their 1 anna 8 pies share. After the final decree was passed, the respondent-defendants filed an application for execution of the decree claiming possession of the said khasra No. 520/1. This application was dismissed by the executing Court on the ground that the said Court was not competent to make any order for delivery of possession in execution proceedings. The said order was challenged before the lower appellate Court. It allowed the appeal, holding that the executing Court was competent to deliver possession and accordingly directed the said Court to issue a warrant of possession. The present appellant has now come up in appeal against that order,

( 3 ) THIS appeal first came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge and it was contended on behalf of the appellant that if a party to a partition suit is not in possession of the share allotted to him by the Collector, it is open for him to file a civil suit for the purpose, but he cannot claim this relief in execution proceedings as the civil Court had become functus officio after passing the preliminary decree for partition under Order XX, Rule 18 of the Code. The learned Single Judge thought that the question involved in the present case is of importance which requires full consideration by a larger Bench, particularly because there is no decision of a Division Bench of this Court. Accordingly he referred the entire case for consideration by a larger Bench. In these circumstances, this appeal has now come up before us for decision.

( 4 ) THE only point which has been urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellant is that where a decree for partition is sent to the Collector lor effecting partition in accordance with the provisions of Section 54 and Order XX, Rule 18 of the Code, the civil Court becomes functus officio and cannot thereafter take any step to enforce the final decree in the execution proceeding. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the civil Court would always have jurisdiction in such cases to pass a final decree which in the present case was passed on 25-1-1960. He further contended that the civil Court does not become functus officio even after the partition is effected by the Collector of the property under Section 54 of the Code. According to him, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not, in any manner, ousted in passing the final decree thereafter and also in delivering possession in accordance with the said decree.

( 5 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant has substance and as such must be accepted. We shall first like to refer to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure before dealing with the point involved in the present case. Rule 18 (1) of Order XX of the Code reads as under:

"rule 18. Where the Court passes a decree for the partition of property or for the separate p