JUDGMENT : Tudball, J. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits of immoveable property. It was instituted on the 9th of February, 1911, in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Banda. It was decreed by the court of first instance and dismissed by the lower appellate court. The plaintiffs have come up here in second appeal. 2. The facts may be briefly stated as follows:— The plaintiffs were owners of a certain share in a certain Khata in the village in question. Attached to this and other Khatas was some Shamlat land. The plaintiffs owned other shares in addition to this in the village. The share in the Khata was mortgaged. A suit was brought on the basis of the mortgage and the share in the Khata was sold together with all appurtenances. It was purchased by the defendants to the present suit. The plaintiffs' contention was that the share in the Shamlat land was neither mortgaged nor sold in execution of the decree. The defendants' contention was that the share in the Shamlat land was appurtenant to the share in the Khata and must be deemed to have been mortgaged and sold when the latter was mortgaged and sold. 3. The plaintiffs filed suits for rent against some tenants of the Shamlat land who pleaded that they had paid their rent to the defendants. The suit was finally decided against the plaintiffs, the revenue courts holding that the defendants had received possession, in execution of the Civil Court decree, of the Shamlat land. It was after this decision that the present suit was brought. Among other defences, the defendants raised the plea that the question between the parties as to the ownership of the Shamlat land, had been decided by the revenue court in connection with a partition case and therefore the present suit was barred. The courts below disallowed the defence on the ground that the objections filed in the partition suit were disallowed as being made out of time, therefore, the revenue courts could not be held to have decided the question and there was no bar to the present suit. 4. The facts of the partition case are briefly as follows:— The application for partition was made in the year 1909 some two years prior to the institution of the present suit. 4. The facts of the partition case are briefly as follows:— The application for partition was made in the year 1909 some two years prior to the institution of the present suit. The defendants asked for partition of their share and they claimed the property which is now in dispute as their own. Notices and proclamation were issued by order dated the nth of November, 1909, and the 10th of December, 1909, was fixed for the filing of objections. On that date Ahmad Ali Khan, described in the record of the partition case as the Mukhtiar Am of Bhagwat Prasad, one of the present plaintiffs, was present. The order of the court shows that no objections of any sort were filed; it therefore directed partition proceedings to be drawn up. On the 20th of January, 1910, objections raising the question of proprietary title of the property now in suit were filed on behalf of the present plaintiffs. The revenue court rejected them as having been made out of time. No appeal whatsoever was preferred from that order and in the partition proceedings it was ordered that the Shamlat land should be divided among the co-sharers of the different Khatas in proportion to the shares which they held in those Khatas. Partition has taken a somewhat weary and lengthened course and is, at the present moment, on the verge of being completed. 5. The lands have been divided and the share claimed by the plaintiffs in this suit has been allotted to the defendants. It is urged on behalf of the respondents that under section 233(k) of the Land Revenue Act the present suit is barred, that it was open to the present plaintiffs to have filed their objections and preferred their claim in the course of partition proceedings. Having failed to take advantage of the opportunity given under sections 110, 111, and 112 of the Revenue Act, they are now barred from coming into the Civil Court to establish their title. In our opinion, there is considerable force in this contention. 6. It is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that if further time be allowed to them they might be able to show to the court that they had not or some of them had not the opportunity, which the law contemplates, of preferring objections under section no of the Revenue Act. 6. It is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that if further time be allowed to them they might be able to show to the court that they had not or some of them had not the opportunity, which the law contemplates, of preferring objections under section no of the Revenue Act. In our opinion, it is too late to raise this contention now. The partition case has been going on for some four years and this suit has passed through two different courts. It was open to the plaintiffs, in answer to the defence raised by the respondents, to have met them with this contention that they had not received the opportunity of filing their objections in the partition case. It is too late now to ask this Court to allow further time merely in order to enable them to see whether or not this plea can be raised and can be established. 7. So far as we can judge from the record, they have had ample opportunity of filing objections; as a matter of fact, they did file objections though not within the time fixed by the court. They did not state therein that they had not had any opportunity of filing their objections within time and that the notice was not duly served upon them. The order of the revenue court amounted to a decree and was open to appeal. In our opinion, section 233(k) of the Land Revenue Act bars the present suit. For this reason the appeal must fail and it is dismissed with costs.