( 2025:JHHC:20284 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 132 of 2025 1. Chandra Mohan Mandal, son of Late Ramdeo Mandal, aged about 62 years, 2. Rina Devi, aged wife of Late Dhanraj Mandal, about 45 years, 3. Dulari Devi, daughter of Late Ramdeo Mandal, aged about 69 years, 4. Manika Kumari @ Dipti Usha, daughter of Rina Devi, grand- daughter of Late Ramdeo Mandal, aged about 24 years, 5. Punam Kumari @ Tripti Usha, Daughter of Rina Devi, grand- daughter of Late Ramdeo Mandal, aged about 25 years, 6. Sandip Kumar, son of Late Mahesh Mandal and grandson of Late Ramdeo Mandal, aged about 39 years, 7. Shiv Pujan Kumar, son of Late Mahesh Mandal and grandson of Late Ramdeo Mandal, aged about 32 years, 8. Anusuya Kumari, daughter of Late Mahesh Mandal and grand- daughter of Late Ramdeo Mandal, aged about 34 years, 9. Vishnu Mandal, aged about 69 years, 10. Gangadhar Mandal, aged about 55 years, 11. Bhagirath Mandal, aged about 58 years, 12. Jaiprakash Mandal, aged about 53 years, Sl. No.9 to 12 sons of Late Dinanath Mandal, 13. Srikant Mandal, aged about 45 years, 14. Santosh Kumar, aged about 42 years, Sl. No.13 & 14, sons of Late Brahma Mandal and grandsons of Late Dinanath Mandal, All residents of Village-Banjhi, P.O.-Ghormara, P.S.-Mohanpur, District-Deoghar (Jharkhand) 15. Bhudeo Mandal, son of Late Mantri Mandal aged about 82 years, 16. Rajkishore Mandal, aged about 49 years, 17. Shanti Ranjan Mandal, aged about 38 years, Sl. No.16 and 17 both sons of Late Sriprasad Mandal and grandsons of Late Mantri Mandal, All residents of Village-Banjhi, P.O.-Ghormara, P.S.-Mohanpur, ( 2025:JHHC:20284 ) 2 District-Deoghar. ……………….Petitioners 1. Tesiya Devi, daughter of Late Ritlal Mandal and wife of Harihar Mandal, resident of Village-Banjhi, P.O.-Ghormora, P.S.-Mohanpur, District-Deoghar. 2. Madan Mandal, 3. Damodar Mandal, 4. Kameshwar Mandal Sadhiya (deleted) 5. Dhanushdhari Mandal, 6. Subal Chandra Mandal, Sl. No.2 to 6, all sons of Late Ramchandra Mandal, 7. Surjee Devi, daughter of Late Ramchandra Mandal, 8. Rakesh Mandal, 9. Ashok Kumar @ Ashik Kumar, 10. Govindlal Mandal, Sl. No. 8 to 10 all sons of Kameshwar Mandal Sadhiya and grandsons of Late Ramchandra Mandal, 11. Balram Mandal, 12. Balkishun Mandal, Sl. No.11 & 12 both sons of Late Fuleshwari Devi, and grandsons of Late Ramchandra Mandal, Sl No. 1 to 12, all residents of Village-Banjhi, P.O.-Ghormara, P.S.- Mohanpur, District-Deoghar. 13. (a) Kundan Kumar @ Sonu Kumar (b). Sweta Kumari Both son and daughter of Bachhu Mandal and Pyari Devi resident of village Fursodih, P.O. Bengabad, P.S. Bengabad, District-Giridih. PIN 815312 14. Deveshwari Devi, 15. Mandodari Devi, Sl. No. 14 and 15 both daughters of Late Dinanath Mandal, Sl No. to 13 and 15, all residents of Village-Banjhi, P.O.-Ghormara, P.S.-Mohanpur, District-Deoghar. 16 (a) Rahul Kumar (b) Sima Kumar ( 2025:JHHC:20284 ) 3 Both son and daughter of Anandi Mandal and grand son and grand daughter of Sasti Devi, Both residents of Guladih, P.O. Choudhary Nawadih, P.S. Palajori, District-Deoghar, PIN- 814149 (c) Dayanand Mandal, son of Sasti Devi, resident Guladih, P.O. Choudhary Nawadih, P.S. Palajori, District-Deoghar, PIN-814149 (d). Nirmal Devi wife of Baidyanath Mandal and daughter of Sasti Devi, resident of village Budhikurva, P.O. Hariharpur, P.S. Taljhari, District-Dumka- PIN- 814120 (e) Shakuntala Devi, widow of late Ganesh Mandal, resident of village Ghatpahadpur, (Kaswa Godda), Mohanpur, P.S. Godda, District-Godda, PIN-814133. 17. Reshmi Devi 18. (a) Bindu Devi wife of Kamdev Mandal resident of village Nawadih, P.O. Devpur, P.S. Jasidih, District-Deoghar (b) Indu Devi widow of late Anil Sah, Jalsar Road, Mahabir Akahada, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar 19. Barsa Kumari, 20. Sangeeta Kumari, 21. Seema Kumari, Sl. No.19 to 21 daughters of Late Sriprasad Mandal and grand- daughters of Late Mantri Mandal, 22. Rajeeva Mandal, 23. Anjani Mandal @ Anjani Devi, 24. Ajeet Mandal, Sl. No.22 to 24 all sons of Late Sudami Devi and grandsons of Late Mantri Mandal, Sl No. 13 to 24, all residents of Village-Banjhi, P.O.-Ghormara, P.S.- Mohanpur, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand, .…… Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate 10/Dated: 24/07/2025 Notice upon O.P. Nos. 1 to 24 have been issued. O.P. No.1 has appeared through her counsel however, inspite of valid service of notice O.P. Nos. 2 to 24 have not appeared that is reflected in earlier two orders and even with a view to provide one more opportunity to them the matter was adjourned on 24.06.2025 however, O.P. Nos. 2 to 24 have chosen not to appear before the Court in view of that this matter is being heard in absence of O.P. Nos. 2 to 24. 2. Heard Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1. ( 2025:JHHC:20284 ) 4 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Deoghar in Original Suit No. 267 of 2018 (Final Decree) whereby the learned court has accepted the report of Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner dated 27.11.2024 and further directed the office to receive relevant court fees for preparation of final decree. Further prayer is made to allow the petitioners to file objection for deciding the report of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner in the O.S. No. 267 of 2018. 4. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ancestors of the petitioners preferred a Title Partition Suit bearing Title Partition Suit No.74 of 1964 / 71 of 1966 claiming 1/4th share in the suit property described in Schedule to the plaint. He submits that on notice the defendants appeared and filed their individual written statement controverting the plea raised in the plaint. He then submits that the Sub Judge-1, Deoghar, upon considering the documentary as well as evidence on record passed Preliminary Decree vide its judgment dated 19.02.1969 declaring 1/4th share in the suit properties to each parties. He submits that the defendants being aggrieved with the judgment dated 19.02.1969 passed in Title Partition Suit No.74 of 1964 / 71 of 1966 preferred First Appeal No.83 of 1969 before the Hon'ble Patna High Court which was dismissed on contest vide its judgment dated 17.07.1986 affirming the judgment dated 19.02.1969 passed in Title Partition Suit No.74 of 1964 / 71 of 1966. He submits that Opposite Party No.1 namely Tesiya Devi daughter of Ritlal Mandal (Original Defendant) preferred an application dated 16.11.2018 before the court of Sub Judge-1, Deoghar for preparation of Final Decree by appointing Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner for affecting partition in the light of Preliminary Decree dated 19.02.1969 which ( 2025:JHHC:20284 ) 5 was registered as O.S. No.267 of 2018. He further submits that Tesiya Devi also preferred another application dated 16.11.2018 informing the Learned Trial Court about the demise of original plaintiffs and defendants which was taken on record, however, no order for substitution was passed in that regard by the learned Trial Court. He then submits that in O.S. No.267 of 2018, no notices were ever issued to the petitioner by the learned Trial Court who happen to be the legal heirs and successors of the original plaintiff. He submits that by order dated 31.05.2024, the learned Trial Court directed the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner for allotment and measurement of shares of separate Takhta in the light of Preliminary Decree without issuing any notice to the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiffs and defendants. He submits that Chandramohan Mandal son of Late Ramdeo Mandal, Brahm Prasad Mandal, Gangadhar Mandal and Jai Prakash Mandal all sons of Dinanath Mandal suo motu appeared in the Final Decree proceedings after gaining knowledge from their well-wishers about institution of said proceeding and Chandramohan Mandal filed an objection on 12.09.2024 stating interalia that Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner, without verifying and measuring the suit properties is preparing a table report. He further submits that even request was made before the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner to demarcate his share however, that has been refused and in view of that the request was made before the learned court to appoint another Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner to demarcate the land in accordance with law. He submits that on 27.11.2024, the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner prepared his report thereby allotted shares to the parties to the suit without considering the convenience of the parties. He submits that the learned court without disposing of any of the interlocutory application with regard to substitution and objection on the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner, accepted the ( 2025:JHHC:20284 ) 6 said report on 07.12.2024 on the endorsement of no objection of the applicant of the final decree proceeding and thereafter by order dated 07.12.2024 directed the office to receive the requisite court fees from the applicant for preparation of the final decree. He submits that in this background the present petition has been filed. 5. According to him against the dead person of the plaintiff as well as defendant, the final decree is being prepared in view of the impugned order which is not in accordance with law and entire exercise will be the nullity if the final decree is prepared in absence of the legal heirs and successors of the plaintiff and the defendant. He submits that petition for substitution of the plaintiff and defendant has already been filed by one of the defendant however, the learned court has not disposed of the said petition and proceeded further and directed the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner to make report. He further submits that even the final report has been accepted without hearing either of the parties. He submits that on all these facts the impugned order is not in accordance with law and once final decree is not prepared only in process, this Court is having power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere. He submits that final decree proceeding can be initiated at any point of time. There is no limitation for initiation of final decree proceeding and either of the parties to the suit can move application for preparation of final decree and any of the defendant can also move application for preparation of final decree. He submits that by mere passing of preliminary decree the suit is not disposed of and for that proposition he relied in the case of “Kuttukandi Edathil Krishnan and another Vs. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and others” reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 2841. On these grounds he submits that impugned order may kindly be set aside and the proper direction may kindly be issued. ( 2025:JHHC:20284 ) 7 6. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 submits that so far substitution of legal heirs and successors are concerned, he has no objection and he fairly submits that the substitution is required in the suit. However, he submits that petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and only appeal will lie and to buttress this argument he relied in the case of “ Ramadh Pathak Vs. Lal Babu Pathak” reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 457. On these grounds he submits that appropriate order may kindly be passed. 7. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record as well as impugned order and petitions on which reliance has been placed. It is an admitted position that preliminary decree was passed by the learned court vide judgment dated 19.02.1969 which was challenged before the Patna High Court and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 17.07.1986. Thereafter the petition was filed before the learned court for preparation of final decree by one of the defendant and during preparation of the final decree, a petition was filed by one of the defendant before the learned court for substitution of legal heirs and successors of the original plaintiff and original defendant pointing out that original plaintiff and defendant have already left for their heavenly abode and inspite of the information made before the learned court, the learned court has not disposed of the said petition and proceeded further and appointed the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner who submitted report later on. After receiving the report, Chandramohan Mandal son of Late Ramdeo Mandal, Brahm Prasad Mandal, Gangadhar Mandal and Jai Prakash Mandal all sons of Dinanath Mandal suo motu appeared in the Final Decree proceedings and Chandramohan Mandal filed an objection on 12.09.2024 and requested them to be impleaded. However, the learned court has also not adhered to ( 2025:JHHC:20284 ) 8 that petition and by the impugned order dated 07.12.2024 and accepted the repot of Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner and directed for proper judicial stamp for preparation of final decree. In this background it is crystal clear that the petition of information of death of the original plaintiffs and original defendants are already there before the learned court and it is well known that any decree or judgment passed against dead person is a nullity. When such a petition was already there before the learned court the learned court was required to take decision on that and thereafter proceed further. In the C.P.C there is no provision that amendment or substitution can be made only by the plaintiff. If the information was made before the learned court that is enough to take a decision on that. This aspect of the matter has been recently considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Gupta @ Lalloowa (Now Deceased) & Ors. Versus Satish Chandra (Now Deceased), reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 291, wherein paras 13 to 20 it has been held as under:- “13. Having regard to the facts noticed above, this appeal would require us to decide whether the heirs of Om Prakash were required to file a separate application for substitution when, admittedly, an application for substitution (Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 211 of 1997) had previously been filed by the heirs of Satish Chandra. If the answer is in the negative, the impugned orders and also the order dated 2nd January 2007 (vide which the second appeal was dismissed as abated) will have to be set aside, since dismissal of a second appeal as abated despite pendency of a valid substitution application would be bad in law. 14. Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure is titled DEATH, MARRIAGE AND INSOLVENCY OF PARTIES. Rule 4 thereof lays down the procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant. It is clear on perusal of such rule that it does not expressly provide who between the parties to a civil suit is to present an application for substitution. 15. In Union of India v. Ram Charan, this Court held: “10. It is not necessary to consider whether the High Court applied its earlier Full Bench decision correctly or not when we are to decide the main question urged in this appeal and that being the first contention. Rules 3 and 4 of Order 22 CPC lay down respectively the procedure to be followed in case of death of one of several plaintiffs when the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiffs alone or that of the sole plaintiff when the right to sue survives or of the death of one several defendants or of sole defendant in similar circumstances. The procedure requires an application for the making of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff or defendant a party to the suit. It does not say who is to present the application. Ordinarily it would be the plaintiff as by the abatement of the suit the defendant stand to gain. However, an application is necessary to be made for the purpose. If no such application is made within the time ( 2025:JHHC:20284 ) 9 allowed by law, the suit abates so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned or as against the deceased defendant. The effect of such an abatement on the suit of the surviving plaintiffs or the suit against the surviving defendants depends on other considerations as held by this Court in State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram [AIR 1962 SCR 89] and Jhandha Singh v. Gurmukh Singh [CA No. 344 of 1956 decided on April 10, 1962]. Anyway, that question does not arise in this case as the sole respondent had died.” (emphasis supplied) 16. The law, laid down in Ram Charan (supra), is clear. There seems to be no legal requirement that on the death of a defendant, an application for substitution in all cases has to be made by the plaintiff only and that, any application, made by the heir(s)/legal representative(s) of the deceased defendant seeking an order to allow him/them step into the shoes of the deceased defendant and to contest the suit, cannot be considered. Once an application has been made by either party and the court has been informed about the death of a party and who the heir(s)/legal representative(s) he has left behind, the only thing that remains for the court is to pass an order substituting the heir(s)/legal representative(s). Such being the case, we have no doubt in holding that the application moved by the heirs of Satish Chandra (Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 211 of 1997), whereby the court was informed by them of his death and the heirs that he had left behind, amounted to an application for substitution which was legally permissible and valid and deserved consideration. 17. According to Mr. Basant, the application filed by the heirs of Satish Chandra was an application intimating the death of Satish Chandra under Order XXII Rule 10-A, CPC and it was not an application under Rule 4 thereof; thus, there being no valid and proper application for substitution, the appeal was rightly held to have abated. 18. We find no force in the argument advanced by Mr. Basant. The application filed by the heirs of Satish Chandra was registered as a substitution application and the prayer was also for deletion of the name of Satish Chandra and substitution of his three sons in his place. In view thereof and having regard to the law laid down in Ram Charan (supra), we hold that an application having been filed by the heirs of Satish Chandra, the heirs of Om Prakash were not legally obliged to apply separately for substitution. 19. In our opinion, the law not having expressly mandated that an application for substitution has to be filed by the plaintiff/appellant upon receiving intimation of death, requiring a formal application from the plaintiff only will serve no tangible purpose. A justice-oriented approach has to be followed in interpreting the provisions of the CPC is the well settled law. Reference may usefully be made to the decision in Chinnammal v. P. Arumugham, where it was held: “17. It is well to remember that the Code of Civil Procedure is a body of procedural law designed to facilitate justice and it should not be treated as an enactment providing for punishments and penalties. The laws of procedure should be so construed as to render justice wherever reasonably possible. It is in our opinion, not unreasonable to demand restitution from a person who has purchased the property in court auction being aware of the pending appeal against the decree.” (emphasis supplied) 20. The High Court having been duly informed of the death of Satish Chandra, and substitution having been prayed by the heirs of the deceased, it ought to have proceeded to consider such application and pass an order bringing the heirs of the deceased respondent on record. This, the High Court omitted to order, perhaps, due to inadvertence whereby pendency of the application for substitution filed by the heirs of Satish Chandra escaped its notice.” 8. When the objection upon the pleader commissioner’s report was filed during pendency of the preparation of final decree the learned ( 2025:JHHC:20284 ) 10 court was required to take a call upon to said petition firstly and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law that procedure has also not been adopted by the learned court in proceeding of preparation of final decree. In this background it is apparent that the learned court has seriously erred in a proceeding to accept Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner report and issued direction to accept the relevant court fee for preparation of final decree. 9. As argued by Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1, the question remains as to whether this petition can be entertained by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or not? 10. The answer is simply positve for the reason that the High Courts power of superintendence is a power to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of the authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. The power of superintendence is not to be exercised unless there has been:-(a) An unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in a Court or Tribunal; or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction; or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or Tribunals. The scope of the Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Shalini Shyam Shetty V. Rajendra Shankar Patti, reported in ( 2010) 8 SCC 329. 11. Apart from above, the High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice. 12. In view of above if the case is coming within three criterion as ( 2025:JHHC:20284 ) 11 discussed hereinabove, the High Court is having the power to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As such it is held that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. So far the objection of Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary of maintainability of appeal is concerned, the Court is also not accepting the same in view of the fact that a suit for partition even after the report of Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner is confirmed and decree is directed to be drawn up in accordance therewith, is a pending litigation, until the Courts signs the final decree and that a decree for partition to be operative, must be engrossed on stamped-paper as required by the Stamp Act, and until the Judge signs the decree so engrossed, it cannot be said that the suit has terminated; and an order directing a party be added under Section Order XX Rule 18 of the C.P.C. and therefore be made in such a suit before it has actually terminated. By the impugned order only the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner report has been accepted in view of that impugned order is not a final decree as contemplated under Section 2 (2) read with Order XX Rule 18 (2) and Order XXVI Rule 14 (3) CPC. The second stage is not yet over. Therefore the proper adjudication of the dispute so raised a detailed enquiry and details are necessary before confirming the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner report Order. 14. In the above background and the facts of the present case the Court does not find force in the argument of Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. no.1 as the impugned order by which the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner report has been confirmed cannot be said to be a decree, under Order XXVI Rule 14 C.P.C prescribes mode and procedure for appointment of a commissioner and confirmation of report. 15. For proper appreciation it is advisable to quote Sub-rule (3) ( 2025:JHHC:20284 ) 12 in extenso:- “ Where the Court confirms or varies the report or reports it shall pass a decree in accordance with the same as confirmed or varied; but where the court sets aside the report or reports it shall either issue a new commission or make such other order as it shall think fit.” 16. As would appear from the aforesaid provision that where a Court confirms or varies the report or reports after adjudication, if any, it shall pass a decree in accordance with the same. 17. Therefore, the Court in the present case without referring to the submissions of the contents of those applicants as discussed hereinabove has just confirmed the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner’s report and admittedly the decree has not been passed as yet. This aspect of final decree was further subject matter before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of “ S. Narayana Reddy and others Vs. S. Sai Reddy” reported in AIR 1990 Andhra Pradesh 263, wherein para 19 it has been held as under:- “19 Since the parties have invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide their y rights in a partition suit, their rights can be d considered at any stage till the passing of the y final decree. Till the final decree as stated above is passed in a partition suit, it is well settled that the suit is said to be pending, till e the final decree is signed by the Judge after engrossing the same on the stamps. In view of the insertion of S. 29-A in the Hindu Succession Act by Act (13 of 1986) the statute conferred a right on the daughters and they n become coparceners in their own right in the same manner as sons and have the same rights in the coparcenary property. In this case, admittedly the daughters are already on a record and, therefore, they are entitled to s claim a right and request the Court to pass a final decree by taking into account the altered situation. It must be made clear that the d alteration of the shares as conferred under the d Amendment Act to the daughters can only be done so long as the final decree has not been .passed. In the case of registration of the partition deed, it is deemed to have been -effected and it is complete partition. But in the case of a partition that has to be made by a Court, it must be deemed that it has been effected only after the passing of the final decree. The meaning of the words "a partition which had been effected" occurring in S. 29A(iv) must be construed as follows: (i) In the case of partition through Court, the termination of the suit ultimately by passing the final decree; (ii) in the case of partition by a registered deed of partition, the partition is deemed to have been effected finally on the date of the registration of the document; (iii) in the case of an agreement or arrangement as entered into between the parties and as recognised in the custom, ( 2025:JHHC:20284 ) 13 the date of such agreement or arrangement as per the custom pleaded and proved by the parties has to be taken into consideration.” 18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the contention of Mr. Choudhary with regard to maintainability of the appeal is not being accepted by this Court and the said argument is hereby negated. 19. A petition for substitution has already been filed before the learned court in view of information made by the defendant and subsequently the objection upon the pleader commissioner’s report has been filed which is also pending and the learned court has not taken any decision on that and further without inviting objection by the legal heirs and successors, the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner’s report has been accepted which is further another error by the learned court and in view of the discussions made hereinabove the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law. 20. Again it is well settled that against the dead person any judgment and decree is nullity and in view of that the learned court further proceed in the matter first deciding the substitution petition for substituting the name of the original plaintiff and the original defendant and thereafter provide opportunity to both the sides to make objection so far Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner’s report is concerned. 21. After taking decision on those petitions which are on record and pending as discussed herein above in accordance with law, the learned court will proceed further in accordance with law. The learned court will provide opportunity of filing objection taking all the grounds on the report of pleader commissioner on behalf of ( 2025:JHHC:20284 ) 14 both the sides. 22. So far the judgment relied by Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary in the case of “Ramadh Pathak” (supra) with regard to maintainability of the appeal is concerned, that is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case against the dead person, a decree was not being prepared and objection upon the pleader commissioner’s report was not the subject matter in that case and in the light of this fact the judgement relied by Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary is distinguishable and the criteria of entertaining the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out in the light of above discussions in view of that this petition has been entertained by this Court. 23. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the impugned order 07.12.2024 is hereby set aside. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A. if any stands disposed of. The learned court will proceed further in terms of para 18 of this judgment. 24. The parties will cooperate in the learned court for early disposal of the final decree proceeding as the suit is of the year, 1964. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/A.F.R.