ORDER:

The main grievance of the revision petitioners is that the final decree petition pending for a decade has not been taken up for enquiry.

2. Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants. Though the respondent was not served with notice, in view of the nature of the relief sought for, the revision petition is taken up for disposal.

3. This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners/defendants aggrieved by the inaction in disposing of the application in I.A.No.959 of 2012 in O.S.No.33 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed for passing final decree in spite of the observations of the Supreme Court in Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna1.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that there is inordinate delay in disposing petition for final decree before several Courts, though there is no need even to file a separate application to pass final decree since passing of final decree after the preliminary decree is continuation of the same suit. He further submitted that recently, the Supreme Court in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan2, while referring to its earlier decisions in Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna (1

1 (2009) 9 SCC 689

2 Civil Appeal Nos.6406-6407 of 2010, decided on 13.06.2022

supra) and Bimal Kumar and Another v. Shakuntala Debi and others [(2012) 3 SCC 548], particularly the decision in Shub Karan Bubna, regarding the suggestions for debate and legislative action, has given directions to the subordinate Courts for disposal of the final decree petitions in the manner indicated and further directed such directions to be circulated to all concerned trial Courts by the Registrar Generals of all High Courts. It is pertinent to refer to the observations, directions and suggestions, which are as follows:

“30. It is clear from the above that a preliminary decree declares the rights or shares of the parties to the partition. Once the shares have been declared and a further inquiry still remains to be done for actually partitioning the property and placing the parties in separate possession of the divided property, then such inquiry shall be held and pursuant to the result of further inquiry, a final decree shall be passed. Thus, fundamentally, the distinction between preliminary and final decree is that:- a preliminary decree merely declares the rights and shares of the parties and leaves room for some further inquiry to be held and conducted pursuant to the directions made in preliminary decree and after the inquiry having been conducted and rights of the parties being finally determined, a final decree incorporating such determination needs to be drawn up.

31. Final decree proceedings can be initiated at any point of time. There is no limitation for initiating final decree proceedings. Either of the parties to the suit can move an application for preparation of a final decree and, any of the defendants can also move application for the purpose. By mere passing of a preliminary decree the suit is not disposed of. [See: Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna; Bimal Kumar and Another v.

Shakuntala Debi and Others]

32. Since there is no limitation for initiating final decree proceedings, the litigants tend to take their own sweet time for initiating final decree proceedings. In some States, the courts after passing a preliminary decree adjourn the suit sine die with liberty to the parties for applying for final decree proceedings like the present case. In some other States, a fresh final decree proceedings have to be initiated under Order XX Rule 18. However, this practice is to be discouraged as there is no point in declaring the rights of the parties in one proceedings and requiring initiation of separate proceedings for quantification and ascertainment of the relief. This will only delay the realization of the fruits of the decree. This Court, in