M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision in my view is not maintainable despite the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This is an off-shoot of litigation of over 40 years and which apparently has not found a logical end. ( 2 ) THE petitioner who is one of the defendants in O. S. No. 391/19 on the file of the City civil Judge, Bangalore, is aggrieved by the order made by the IV Additional City Civil judge on an application filed under Section 151 of the C. P. C. to hold that defendants in the suit are not liable to render the accounts to the plaintiff in respect of the property that were in their respective possession as on 11-7-1940. That contention appears to have been founded on what the learned predecessor had recorded earlier to the effect to the valuation made on the assets as on 11-7-1940 undisputedly being the joint family properties as on that dale was Rs. 15,99,70 and the value of the properties in the hands of the plaintiff as on 11-7-1940 being valued at Rs. 1,92,476-13, that was in excess of 2/19th share declared to be the plaintiffs share. The assets in the hands of the plaintiff was therefore more than he was entitled to as on that date. Therefore, the application with the prayer to which I have already adverted to. ( 3 ) IN this Court also, Mr. G. S. Visveswara, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has pointed out that having regard to the specific directions issued by the supreme Court while disposing of Civil appeals Nos. 2152-2153/1966 (See A. I. R. 1972 S. C. 1279 at page 18) it will become unnecessary for defendants to render accounts, if the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff had on the relevant date more than his share of the joint family properties as valued. On the other hand, Shri Padubidri raghavendra Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents, contends that all the three instructions given by the Supreme Court must be given full effect to and none of the instructions can be read in isolation and therefore what the learned Judge has now done is the correct thing i. e. , to call upon all parties to render accounts in respect of the properties which were in their respective possession as on 11-7-1940. ( 4 ) I have already expressed that this revision is not maintainable and I give the following reasons. Anything done in final decree proceedings is subject to further appeal to this Court as a matter of right subject, however, to the discretion of this court in entertaining or not entertaining that appeal. Therefore, to raise these matters as disputes in interlocutory proceedings and thereby delay the drawing up of the final decree proceedings should be discouraged. Otherwise, the very object of the instructions given by the Supreme Court in drawing up of the final decree proceedings in accordance with the direction will be defeated. If the directions are misunderstood, the only proper forum to correct is this Court in appeal or ultimately the Supreme Court. If directions are not at all understood then the clarification may be sought in the Supreme court by the aggrieved parties. But it is not a subject matter for the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the C. P. C. ( 5 ) ANYWAY the matter is looked at, the remedy for the petitioners lie in seeking clarification from the Supreme Court or to wait till the final decree proceedings are completed and to file an appeal in this Court against the final decree. Subject to the above observation, this petition is dismissed with a direction that accounts be called for from all parties and final decree proceedings be drawn up as early as possible. --- *** --- .