Parties must raise objections during proceedings to ensure procedural fairness; failure to object undermines claims of prejudice in final decrees.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Nag, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 97 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the final decree and order dated 28.03.2019, passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit(Partition) No.112 of 1998.

3. The present appeal revolves around very short campus. The respondents No.1(b), 1(c), 1(d) and 2 had instituted a suit for partition against the defendants being the plaintiffs. There were as many as nine defendants when the suit was filed by late Monoranjan Roy, the predecessor of the said plaintiff-respondents. The present appellants, i.e. Smt. Amiya Prabha Roy and Sri Shyam Lal Roy were impleaded as defendants No.7 and 8 in the Title Suit. All the defendants had received notices issued upon them by the learned Court. Some of the defendants contested the suit.

4. Issues were framed and evidences were recorded. After conclusion of recording evidence, learned trial Court had heard the arguments of the contesting parties. Thereafter, judgment was passed and preliminary decree was drawn.

5. Mr. Dhar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Amiya Prabha Roy and Shyam Lal Roy(the original defendants No.7 and 8 respectively in the title suit), at the very outset, has submitted that the present appellants never appeared and contested the suit. Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents has submitted that the defendants-appellant No.7 and 8, i.e. the present appellants were very much present and contested the suit.

The above submission of Mr. Laskar, learned counsel leads me to peruse the written statement filed by the defendants-appellant. It appears that the defendant No.7, Amiya Prabha Roy, the appellant No.1 and defendant No.8, Shyam Lal Roy, the appellant No.2, in this appeal, both appeared and contested the suit by filing written statements and participated in the further proceeding of the case.

6. The defendants-respondent No.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, namely Sri Pran Krishna Roy, Sri Gouranga Chandra Roy, Sri Bijoy Krishna Roy, Smt. Mira Roy Choudhury and Sri Mrinal Kanti Roy, had preferred appeal challenging the said preliminary decree dated 03.07.2001. The said first appeal was registered as RFA No.38 of 2001 before the High Court. However, the appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 26.11.2013. It is specifically submitted by Mr. Dhar, learned senior counsel that the present appellants did not prefer any appeal against the preliminary decree.

7. Thereafter, the plaintiffs had filed an applicatio1n for drawing up final decree. The Court appointed Survey Commissioner. The Survey Commissioner had submitted report firstly on 01.03.2019, which was rejected by the Court and directed to resurvey the decretal land. In pursuance of such direction, the Survey Commissioner again surveyed the land and submitted another report on 18.03.2019, which also was rejected by the Court vide order dated 25.03.2019. While rejecting the report of the Survey Commissioner under the order dated 25.03.2019, the learned trial Court had directed the Survey Commissioner to again resurvey the decretal land physically and the learned Court had fixed the next date on 28.03.2019. The Survey Commissioner had submitted his report on 26.03.2019. According to learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, there was no