1 82-WP-5946-2024 (C) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5946 OF 2024 Govind Shankar Pednekar …...Petitioner Vs. Satyavan Ramchandra Pednekar & Anr. …...Respondents ... Mr. Vikram N Walawalkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Omkar Gandhi i/b Mr. Narendra P. Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2026. ORDER : . Heard Mr. Vikram N Walawalkar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2. This matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties. 3. The Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 11.09.2023 passed below Exhibit-21, refusing to frame the additional issues in the final decree proceedings. The Petitioner is original plaintiff who had filed R.C.S. No. 60 of 2001 for partition, possession and other reliefs. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, and preliminary decree was drawn on 17.11.2006. The decree was put to the 2 82-WP-5946-2024 (C) execution. There were supervening events which led the respondent- defendant to file a couple of applications for appointment of Commissioner, in the final decree Application No.6 of 2019, those were rejected by the trial Court. The Petitioner submitted Application Exhibit-21, seeking framing of the issues so as to bring on record the supervening events and which would facilitate execution of the decree. By impugned order, the application is rejected. 3. Mr. Walawalkar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would submit that it is permissible to go into the subsequent events and physical and topographical changes of the subject matter in the final decree proceedings. The framing of the issues and bringing the exact nature and location of the subject matter is required to execute the decree passed by the trial Court. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is claiming to be owner of the newly constructed house, and the Respondents have no right, claim and interest to that extent. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents would support the order. It is submitted that the trial Court has taken a reasonable and possible view, and no interference is called for. 5. It is not disputed that the preliminary decree passed in R.C.S. No. 60 of 2001 is to be executed. As it is a decree of partition in 3 82-WP-5946-2024 (C) respect of the agricultural land in Schedule-A and the dwelling house shown in Schedule-B, the controversy pertains to the dwelling house shown in Schedule-B, situated at Mouje Kolamb, Taluka Malwan, District Sindhudurg. The subsequent events after passing of the preliminary decree have to be taken into account so as to finalize the rights of the parties. It is necessary to examine the supervening events which are pertaining to the dimension, location and nature of the suit lands and the developments done therein. There are ways and means available for the parties to bring those events on record. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed on record the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of Phoolchand and Anr. Vs. Gopal Lal 1 I have gone through paragraphs 6 and 7, which lay down that subsequent events, such as a change in shares, can be taken into account in the final decree proceedings. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Ganduri and Anr. Vs. Chakiri and Anr.2 , which, inter alia, relies upon the earlier judgment referred above. The change in shares, the death, birth in the family and the change in law need to be taken into account while passing the final decree so as to ensure that the rights and liabilities amongst the parties are crystallized conclusively. 1 AIR 1967 SC 1470 2 (2011) 9 scc 788 4 82-WP-5946-2024 (C) 6. The Petitioner has filed Application Exhibit-21 for framing of the issues so as to bring on record the subsequent events. Framing of the issues and leading of the evidence like that of a suit is not contemplated in the final decree proceedings. There is every possibility of consuming more time in undertaking the said exercise. It would be appropriate to appoint the Commissioner to examine the location, dimension and nature of the properties so as to have a clear picture of the original suit properties as well as the developments carried therein and which would facilitate passing of the final decree. In that view of the matter, presently, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the clarification that it would be open to the parties as well as the trial Court, which is seized of the final decree proceedings, to appoint a Commissioner or to undertake such exercise so as to bring on record the location, nature and dimension of the suit land and the developments made during the pendency of the proceedings before passing the final decree. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] Suresh