court commissioner. However, on seeing the facts, it reveals that the original suit in O.S.No. 327 of 1988 was decreed in favour of plaintiffs, thereafter, first and second appeal was also filed and the same were ended in favour of plaintiffs in the year of 2017 itself. Thereafter, she filed an application for division of the property through the commissioner and thereafter, the 3rd defendant filed an application to amend the prayer column by including her share in the property. Now, the present application was filed to withdraw the said application in I.A.No. 1344 of 2017. On seeing the conduct of 3rd defendant, due to filing of enormous applications, the plaintiffs are not able to get the decree in time. But, admittedly, during the pendency of proceedings, Defendants 1 and 2 died and share allotted to defendants 1 and 2 is 5/6th share, now it has to be changed. Of course, there is no specific order in respect of the said share in the preliminary decree as rightly pointed out by the plaintiff's counsel. But, admittedly, the defendants have to pay necessary court fee for their share by showing how they are entitled 5/12th share before the final decree proceedings. Hence, the Revision Petitioner is not entitled to withdraw the application, on the other hand, a direction is given to the revision petitioner to work out her remedy
