In partition suits, the court is required to proceed with final decree proceedings post preliminary decree without necessitating a separate application, ensuring continuous and expedient resolution.

For Petitioners : M/s.R.Thenamirtha Shyamala O R D E R The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Judge appointing Advocate Commissioner to suggest modes of Division as per the preliminary decree for partition.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and a preliminary decree for partition was passed declaring 1/16th share to first plaintiff and 7/8^th share to each of the plaintiffs 2 and 3.

3. Pursuant to the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed instant application seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to divide the property as per the preliminary decree. The trial Court by the impugned order appointed an Advocate Commissioner to suggest the mode of division as per the preliminary decree. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/defendants have come before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner filed by the respondents without filing a petition for passing of final decree is untenable in law.

5. The learned counsel further submits that any order passed in a petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to divide the property can only be challenged by way of revision and in the absence of final decree by the trial Court based on the application made by the party to the preliminary decree for partition, the right of filing appeal against the final decree, available to the petitioners, will get deprived.

6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the main question to be decided in this revision is whether petition filed by the plaintiff seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to divide the property, as per the preliminary decree is maintainable without a separate application for passing of final decree. 7. The practice of passing two decrees in the name of preliminary decree and final decree in partition suit and the inconvenience caused by such practice had been extensively considered by the Apex Court in Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bub vs Sita Saran Bubna & Ors reported in (2009) 9 SCC 689.

8. The Apex Court in the above mentioned decision, after expressing a need for doing away the practice of passing two decrees in the partition suit, ultimately observed as follows:

“31. Insofar as final decree proceedings are concerned, we see no reason for even legislative intervention. As the provisions of the Code stand at present, initiation of final decree proceedings does not depend upon an application for final decree for initiation (unless the local amendments require the same). As noticed above, the Code does not contemplate filing an application for final decree. Therefore, when a preliminary decree is passed in a partition suit, the proceedings should be continued by fixing dates for further proceedings till a final decree is passed. It is the duty and function of the court. Performance of such function does not require a reminder or nudge from the litigant. The mindset should be to expedite the process of dispute resolution.” (emphasis supplied by this Court)

Therefore, it is clear that partition suit is a continuous one till the passing of final decree and no separate application by the litigant is necessary to initiate final decree proceedings and it is the duty of the Court to continue the proceeding till the passing of final decree.

9. The above view of the Apex Court was re-affirmed in a subsequent decision of the Apex Court in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and others Vs. Kattakandi Edathil Valsan and others reported in (2022 ) 16 SCC 71 wherein the Apex C