A final decree based on a commissioner’s report stands absent substantial grounds for interference.

A preliminary decree in O.S. No. 8263/2011 awarded the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 equal one-fourth shares in the suit schedule properties, subject to the exclusion stated in paragraph 17 of the trial court’s judgment.

The decree was not challenged and attained finality.

The plaintiff then sought physical division in FDP No. 58/2019.

The FDP Court appointed a Court Commissioner and, accepting the Commissioner’s report, passed a final decree on 17 September 2025.

Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 appealed under Section 96 CPC, contending that the division was incorrect and seeking referral to mediation.

Whether the FDP Court’s order physically dividing the property on the basis of the Court Commissioner’s report required interference.

Whether the FDP Court’s order otherwise required interference.

The appeal was brought under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court proceeded on the basis that the unchallenged preliminary decree, which determined the parties’ respective shares, had attained finality and governed the final-decree proceedings.

The judgment cites no precedents or further statutory provisions; its assessment of the final decree turned on the Commissioner’s report and whether the objections raised before the FDP Court provided a sufficient basis to disturb the resulting division.

The High Court noted that the preliminary decree fixing the parties’ shares was final and that the FDP Court had divided the property in accordance with the Commissioner’s report.

Although the appellants alleged that the division was incorrect and that the FDP Court had accepted the report without proper verification, the High Court found that no substantial, specific objection to the report had been established in the FDP proceedings; it also noted that the report’s correctness had been admitted by a party to those proceedings.

In those circumstances, and given that the plaintiff had pursued her share for approximately 15 years without receiving it physically, the Court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the final decree.

The appeal was dismissed, leaving the final decree based on the Commissioner’s report in force.