JUDGMENT Kaul, J. - This is an appeal against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, (at Lucknow) in a suit for partition. A preliminary objection is taken, that no appeal lies. The facts so far as they are material for the determination of the question are as follows. 2. A suit for partition was brought by the Respondent against the Appellant. A preliminary decree for partition declaring the share to which each party was entitled, was passed. The present Appellant Phanindra Nath Banerji who was the Defendant in the case made an application for preparation of the final decree. A Commissioner was appointed and he filed his report. Thereafter the Court passed the order under appeal which gave directions for the actual division of the property and further provided for payment of Rs. 1,730/- by way of compensation by the present Appellant to the Respondent within 6 months of the date of the order. The concluding portion of the order runs thus: Let a final decree be prepared accordingly. The Commissioner's map will form part of the decree. 3. No final decree has so far be6n prepared. The Appellant without waiting for the preparation of final decree has preferred an appeal against this order which was passed on the 9th December 1944. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the order was not appealable. I am clear that the preliminary objection must prevail. As held in Kedar Nath v. Puttu Lal AIR 1945 Oud 312, no order like the present giving directions for the preparation of a final decree can by itself be treated as a decree. It was held in Jotindra Mohan Tagore v. Bejoy Chand Mahtap ILR Cal. 483, that: A suit for partition even when, the report of the Commissioner is confirmed and a decree is directed to be drawn in accordance therewith, is a pending litigation, until the Court signs the final decree. A decree for partition, to be operative, must be engrossed on stamped-paper required by the Stamp Act, and until the Judge signs the decree so engrossed it cannot be said that the suit has terminated..... 4. Code of CPC does not allow an appeal against an order like the present. The preliminary objection is upheld and the appeal is dismissed with costs. Stay order dated 28th September 1945 is vacated.