JUDGMENT Sidheswar Narayan, J.: The defendant in Title Suit No. 181/38 of the Court of City Civil at Calcutta, Bench II feels aggrieved of the order dated 19.11.93 of the said court whereby his application dated 22.9.93 under s. 151 of the CPC for recall of an earlier order dated 25.3.93 was refused. By the order dated 25.3.93 and earlier petition of the defendant being dated 29.6.93 praying for acceptance of a partition plan in supersession of Commissioner's report had been directed. 2. The relevant facts are that there was a partition suit being Title Suit No. 181/88 filed in the City Civil Court at Calcutta praying for preliminary decree for partition of certain property given in a schedule. The said suit was decreed on admission without any cost and the share of plaintiff No. 1 and 3 were jointly declared to be 4/9th share whereas, the plaintiff No. 2 1/9th share and the defendant 4/9th share. It was further directed in the decree that the parties would effect partition of the suit property amicably within two months in accordance with their respective shares by metes and bounds, failing which a surveyor Pleader Commissioner would be appointed for effecting partition of the suit property by metes and bounds. Since the parties failed to effect the partition amicably, a Pleader Commissioner was appointed to effect the partition. Subsequently, a report of the Pleader Commissioner was submitted and, thereupon, the report along with a map of the house holding demarcating joint share of plaintiff No.1 and 3 as 47.3% and that of the defendant being 52.77% was accepted by the Court with the consent of the parties. It may be mentioned here that as per some settlement arrived at between the parties the share of plaintiff No. 2 being 1/9 was agreed to be eliminated on payment of owelty money to her, partly by the plaintiff No. 1 and 3 and partly by the defendant and therefore, the house holding was divided only in two portions, the front portion (southern side) of the building having been allotted to plaintiff No. 1 and 3 and the back portion on the northern side to the defendant with common passage on the east from the right side. 3. 3. It was only after acceptance of the aforesaid Commissioner's report by the Court's order dated 8.1.93 that there was another significant event taking place with regard to the shares of the parties. The defendant, who is' the aggrieved petitioner of the impugned order, purchased 1/9th share of plaintiff No. 2 in the suit premises and, accordingly, his share in the suit property was enhanced to the extent of 5/9 instead of 4/9 as originally granted in the preliminary decree and that of the plaintiff No. 1 and 3 remained as before being 4/9th share. There was thus necessity felt by the defendant petitioner that the Commissioner's report based on elimination of share on payment of owelty money and earlier accepted by the Trial Court should be superseded and be substituted by a partition plan prepared at his instance on the basis of his purchase of share and annexed to his petition dated 29.6.93. A question thus arises whether the entitlement of the defendant to an enhanced share should be upheld after a direction for preparation for final decree in terms of the Pleader Commissioner's report accepted' with consent of the parties and, if so, whether the fresh partition plan prepared at the instance of the defendant be accepted in supersession of the Commissioner's report already accepted. 4. The principle in law has almost been set at rest that a Court of law can take notice of a subsequent event for a full and complete decision of the real matter in controversy between the parties. In this context, my attention was drawn to a ruling cited on behalf of the defendant petitioner, which is AIR 1957 SC 875 . I do not propose to traverse the said ruling and the legal issues enunciated therein. In fact, there can be no controversy raised as to the legal position that the Court can certainly take notice of the subsequent event and, in that view of the matter, the event of transfer of share by Plaintiff No. 2 being one of the co-sharers in favour of the defendant petitioner, after the preliminary decree was passed, has got to be taken into account. 5. 5. The crux of the matter, therefore, hinges only on the point as to which one of the two events taking place after the passing of the preliminary decree and before final decree is proposed to be acted upon and given an effect to. The first event was the consent given by all the three sharers for acceptance of the Pleader Commissioner's report for preparation of the final decree and the second one was the transfer of interest of one of the co-sharers being plaintiff No.2 to the other co-sharer being defendant/petitioner through a registered deed of conveyance. The two events were certainly opposed to each other in so far as the devolution of the interest of plaintiff No. 2 was concerned. The plaintiff No. 2 earlier opted for giving his share in favour of the remaining both sets of sharers on payment of owelty money, whereas by her subsequent action in the matter she (plaintiff No.2) transferred her interest only in favour of one set i.e. defendant. It would be relevant to point out here that since the Pleader Commissioner's report accepted by the Court has not yet been made effective by passing a final decree in terms thereof, it would be deemed to be still in fluid state. Furthermore, a conveyance of interest in some property by virtue of a registered deed would certainly over-ride the effect of Pleader Commissioner's report even if accepted by the Court with consent of the parties for the purpose of preparing a final decree (which has not yet been passed). Therefore, it was not in proper exercise of the jurisdiction by the Court below while refusing to pay any heed to a registered deed of Conveyance as against the earlier consent given by the parties for acceptance of the Pleader Commissioner's report. In this context, I would prefer to quote the relevant extract of the two orders passed by the Court below : – Order Dated: 25.8.93 * * * * * * “It will appear from the record that by order dated 8.1.93 the report of the Learned Commissioner was accepted on consent by both the parties. The proposed plan is seeking to effect the charge of the partition plan submitted by the Commissioner. There is no document filed to show whether the defendant had actually purchased the share of plaintiff No.2 in the suit premises. The proposed plan is seeking to effect the charge of the partition plan submitted by the Commissioner. There is no document filed to show whether the defendant had actually purchased the share of plaintiff No.2 in the suit premises. If the proposed plan is accepted at this stage in supersession of the Commissioner's plan some complication will arise. * * * * * * Order Dated: 19.11.93 * * * * * * It may be that the defendant had purchased the share of plaintiff No. 2 but, 'in my view, it will cause inconvenience in the matter of possession of the suit property by the parties if the plan submitted by the defendant No. 1 is accepted in supersession of the Commissioner's plan.” * * * * * * 6. I am unable to agree with the above angle of view taken by the learned Court below. In no uncertain terms I may observe that the subsequent event of transfer of interest by virtue of a registered deed of conveyance has got to be taken into account because that would certainly have over-riding effect over the earlier event of simply giving consent to the Pleader Commissioner's report by the parties. The deed of conveyance cannot be overlooked and brushed aside in the manner as done in the impugned order. Since there has been a significant change in the interest of the property under partition after passing of the preliminary decree and certainly before the preparation of the final decree, it has got to be taken into account to avoid multiplicity of litigation between the parties and also to achieve full and complete decision on the real matter of controversy between the parties. 7. For the reasons, aforesaid, I find no alternative but to set aside the impugned order with direction that the Court below before proceeding to draw up a final decree will take 'into account the event of conveyance of interest of plaintiff No. 2 in favour of the defendant/petitioner, after once examining the original deed-in-question: in presence of both the parties. In the exigency of the matter, the Court below will issue necessary instruction for preparation of a fresh plan by a survey Pleader Commissioner as per the existing interest of the parties 'in the suit premises. The Revisional petition is thus allowed and the impugned order is set aside. In the exigency of the matter, the Court below will issue necessary instruction for preparation of a fresh plan by a survey Pleader Commissioner as per the existing interest of the parties 'in the suit premises. The Revisional petition is thus allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed.