Partition suit proceedings continue suo motu after preliminary decree without necessity of separate final decree application.

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit for partition and obtained a preliminary decree declaring a 1/16th share for the first plaintiff and a 7/8th share each for the second and third plaintiffs.

Following this, the respondents filed I.A.No.14 of 2024 seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to divide the property according to the preliminary decree.

The V Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, allowed the application on 04.11.2025.

The petitioners (defendants) challenged this order via a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227, arguing that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed without a prior formal application for passing a final decree and that such a procedure deprives them of their right to appeal the final decree.

The Court primarily applied Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the procedure for partition suits.

It relied extensively on the Supreme Court precedents in *Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bub v. Sita Saran Bubna & Ors (2009)* and *Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Ors. v. Kattakandi Edathil Valsan & Ors (2022)*, which established that a partition suit is a continuous proceeding until the final decree is passed.

These cases clarify that the Code of Civil Procedure does not contemplate a separate application for a final decree and that Trial Courts have a *suo motu* duty to continue proceedings—including the appointment of a commissioner—immediately after the preliminary decree is passed without requiring a fresh "nudge" from litigants.

The Court rejected the petitioners' contention that a separate final decree application is a legal prerequisite for appointing a commissioner.

Applying the doctrine from *Shub Karan Bubna*, the High Court reasoned that because a partition suit is continuous, the Trial Court’s duty is to fix dates for further proceedings until the finality of the suit.

The Court noted that the only practical hurdle in "drawing up" the final decree is the provision of stamp papers by the parties, a requirement that exists regardless of whether a separate application is filed.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that an Advocate Commissioner merely suggests modes of division via local inspection, while the actual allotment of shares remains the judicial function of the Court through the final decree.

The Court dismissed the petitioners' concern regarding the loss of appeal rights, noting that once the Court acts on the commissioner's report and passes a final decree, that decree remains appealable under Section 96 of the CPC.

The Court affirmed the Trial Court's order and clarified that the petitioners retain their right to challenge the eventual final decree through an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC.

No costs were awarded.