2.It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a party to the suit for partition and it is also admitted that a preliminary decree was passed in the suit long back. Stating that the petitioner had purchased item No.8 in suit B schedule and that he has also put up a construction, the petitioner has filed the application for passing supplemental preliminary decree. In the application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has further stated that the first defendant is not entitled to more than 1/6th share in the property contrary to the decree for partition. The petitioner has not challenged the preliminary decree. Request for supplemental preliminary decree questioning the preliminary decree is not permissible. The petitioner's contention that he has purchased the property from one of the parties to the suit long before the partition suit was filed and that he is a bona fide purchaser for value are not sufficient to seek a supplemental preliminary decree to the prejudice of all the other persons who have definite share in the property. Hence, the Revision Petition itself is liable to be dismissed on merits. However, it is reported that the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as against the respondents 1 to 4, 6 to 10 and 12 by order of Court. In the application seeking supplemental preliminary decree all the parties who are interested should be heard. This Court cannot entertain this Civil Revision Petition after the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed in respect of many of the parties who are entitled to share in the property. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
