(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed as against an order of remand made in A.S.No.152/2006 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.
(2.) Sri Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, Counsel representing the appellant would maintain that no doubt a final decree to be passed in accordance with the preliminary decree, but however even on a cursory glance of the allotments made, there is total non-application of mind and the same had been allotted in a disorderly fashion. The learned Counsel also pointed out that no doubt the appellate Court observed that the Court of first instance did not make a speaking order, but however, in stead of making an open order of remand, observed as though for allotment already made, reasons to be recorded. The Counsel also would maintain that these observations made by the appellate Court would be taken by the Court of first instance that the allotments already made in a way to be confirmed, but by recording reasons. By such an order of remand, serious prejudice is caused to the appellant.
(3.) Per contra Sri Tarakam, the learned Senior Counsel had explained the meaning of 'preliminary decree' and 'final decree' in a partition action and would submit that the final decree to be passed in accordance with the preliminary decree. The learned Senior Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Venkat Reddy and others Vs. Pethi Reddy. The learned Senior Counsel in all fairness would submit that in the light of the facts and circumstances, if any modified order to be passed while making the final decree, the appellate Court could have done the same and to say that reasons had not been recorded by the Court of first instance, may not be the correct view. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the relevant portions of the order made in A.S.No.152/2006 by IV Additional District Judge, Warangal and also the order made in I.A.No.947/2003 in O.S.No.157/96 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.