The High Court accepted the revision petition and dismissed the application under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC as per order dated September 24, 1964.
In execution of the final decree, the parties were delivered possession of the property which fell to their share in August, 1947.
Calcutta on lease for sixty years from the plaintiff.
This application was allowed by the trial Court as per order dated October 16, 1963.
As mentioned above the property, which was the subject matter of the partition suit, included the property situated in Jackson Lane.
During the pendency of these proceedings, it is stated on behalf of Serajul Haq, respondent learned Counsel 13, that he took the property learned Counsel 4B, Jackson Lane.
One part of that property was allotted to the defendant?
It is this order which is the subject matter of this appeal.
The local companymissioner submitted a report, and in accordance with his report, a final decree was prepared on February 14, 1947.
In reply to that, Mr. Jagdish Swarup asserts that the property in dispute has number been leased out to respondent learned Counsel 13 and that the only person with whom it was necessary for the appellant to enter into a companypromise with respect to the property in dispute was the plaintiff respondent.
and the same is stated to be numbered 4A while the other part which is stated to be numbered 4B fell to the share of the plaintiff The property which fell to the share of the defendants was purchased by Saksena Brothers P Ltd. the appellant.
The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but on appeal to the High Court there was a companypromise between the parties and a preliminary decree was awarded in favour of the plaintiff on July 27, 1945 A local companymissioner was thereafter appointed to partition the property.
On March 11, 1959 an application was filed under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC by the appellant before the trial Court for companyrection of the final decree on the ground that the local companymissioner while effecting partition by metes and bounds had made wrong calculation of the area.
At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Jagdish Swarup, learned Counsel for the appellant, states that there has been a settlement between the appellant and the plaintiff respondent and that the deed of settlement has been filed in this Court.
R. Khanna, J. This appeal on certificate arises out of a suit for partition brought by Bhudhar Chandra Banerjee plaintiff respondent, on March 4, 1937.
The plaintiff in that suit claimed one half share in certain properties, including the properties situated on Jackson Lane, Calcutta.
The plaintiff thereupon filed an application under Section 115 of the CPC to the High Court against the order of the trial Court.
