K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) AT the stage of admission, the respondent is notified Accordingly, he has put in appearance through his counsel. Hence, the matter is heard on merits. ( 2 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 11th november 1980 passed by the learned civil Judge, Ranebennur, in F. D P. No 2/79 rejecting I A No 1 filed by the petitioners. Pursuant to the preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the suit properties, the commissioner was appointed in respect of the non-agricultural properties to effect partition in accordance with the terms con- dingly, the Commissioner divided the properties and submitted his report dated 18-3-1977. The parties were given an opportunity in the matter and thereafter on consideration of the objections of the parties the Court with certain modifications accepted the report of the commissioner by the order dated 2nd November 1978 Accordingly, the suit regarding non agricultural properties came to an end. The order dated 2-11-1978 amounts to a final decree and as such, it is appealable. No appeal is preferred against the said order. As such, the said order has become final and conclusive. Long time thereafter, the application in question has been filed claiming easement of necessity with a prayer that 12 feet path be set apart in the portion of the property allotted to defendant No. 1. This application has been rejected by the lower Court. ( 3 ) SRI P. Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for respondent, submits that the application I. A. 1 is not maintainable in view of the fact that the order dated 2-11-1978 has become final and the learned Civil judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the application I. A. No 1. It is also further urged that as long as the order dated 2-11-1978 has become final, it is not open for the trial Court to pass any order so as to affect or modify the said order dated 2-11-1978. The learned Counsel also submits that it is still open for the petitioner to establish the alleged right of easement of necessity by filing a separate suit. The learned Counsel also submits that it is still open for the petitioner to establish the alleged right of easement of necessity by filing a separate suit. ( 4 ) IN a suit for partition and separate possession, pursuant to the preliminary decree, once the Commissioner submits the report regarding the partition of the non-agricultural properties and pursuant to that report, the Court passes the order either affirming or modifying the allotment of shares to various parties according to the terms of the preliminary decree, the suit comes to an end. If any of the parties to the suit is aggrieved by the order allotting the non-agricultural properties, it is open for him to prefer an appeal. That being so, the Court could not have entertained the application in question. Drawing up of a final decree pursuant to the order dated 2-11-1978 is only a formal thing. The mere fact that a final decree was not actually drawn pursuant to the order dated 2-11-1978 allotting specific properties according to the command of the preliminary decree did not make the suit any the more pending. The suit came to an end as soon as the order dated 2-11-1978 was passed, As such, the lower Court could not have entertained the application I. A. No, 1 to determine the right of easement of necessity claimed by the petitioners consequently, the order is without jurisdiction. Since the application is dismissed by the lower Court, it is not necessary to set aside the order. But, it is necessary to make it clear that as the application itself is not maintainable, any observation made by the lower Court during the course of its order in question affecting the alleged right of easement claimed by the petitioners shall not be relied upon in any subsequent proceeding or suit as those observations are null and void since the same have been made in a proceeding which is not maintainable in law. Accordingly, subject to the above observations, this civil revision petition is dismissed keeping it open for the petitioners to agitate the matter in a separate suit if they so desire. --- *** --- .