ORDER This application in revision is directed against the order dated 24.9.1990 passed in Miscellaneous Case no. 6/88, whereby the order dated 29.8.1987 has been recalled. The relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed Title Partition Suit no. 195 of 1972. The suit was decreed. A Pleader Commissioner was appointed for preparation of final decree. On 12.10.1985 the Pleader Commissioner submitted his report. The plaintiff filed an objection to the said report of the Pleader Commissioner. By order dated 29.9.1987, the objection of the plaintiff was allowed and the report of the Pleader Commissioner was modified to the effect that the passage left on the eastern side allotted to the defendant opposite party would also be used by the plaintiff and the report of the Pleader Commissioner was confirmed. The defendant opposite party filed a petition challenging the order dated 29.8.1987, on which Miscellaneous Case no. 6 of 1988 was registered, and the same was ultimately allowed by the impugned order. In the impugned order it has been stated that from the map submitted by the Pleader Commissioner it would transpire that there was a public road on the northern side of the disputed plot. The plaintiff was allotted his share in the northern side of the plot i.e., adjacent south to the public road. The defendant was allotted share adjacent south to the plaintiff's share. The Pleader Commissioner allotted four feet eight inches wide passage on the eastern portion of the plaintiff's house for use of the defendant. The plaintiff objected to the allotment of the aforesaid passage to the defendant. The court by order dated 29.8.1987 modified the report of the Pleader Commissioner and permitted the plaintiff to use the said passage the reason given by the court below was that the parties are milk-men and they would require sufficient passage for taking their cattle (sic) from the road to their respective houses. By the impugned order the said order, with regard to the use of the passage in question by the plaintiff-petitioner, has been recalled. The petitioner submitted hat since by order dated 29.8.87 the Pleader Commissioner's report was confirmed there was no occasion for review, and that too under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also pointed out that the plaintiff has no passage to go to the main road which is to the North of the house. The petitioner submitted hat since by order dated 29.8.87 the Pleader Commissioner's report was confirmed there was no occasion for review, and that too under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also pointed out that the plaintiff has no passage to go to the main road which is to the North of the house. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be convincing. It is apparent from the facts stated above that the petitioner was allotted share adjacent south to the road. Further-more it was not an application for review. The opposite party filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on which a miscellaneous case was registered and thus the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. On consideration of the submissions as made above, I am of the view that there is no merit in this application, so much so any jurisdiction error. Accordingly, this application is dismissed, but without cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, says that it is rainy season and hence the petitioner may be allowed to use the said passage for some time. Learned counsel for the opposite party has no objection to the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to use the said passage till 17.10.1995 and thereafter the petitioner shall have no legal right to use the same. Application dismissed.