JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The defendants second parties are the petitioners in this revision application. They have challenged the order dated 29th April, 1994 passed in Misc. Case No. 11/88. By the impugned order the learned 6th Subordinate Judge. Bhagalpur while allowed the Misc. Case No. 11/88. set aside the preliminary decree and final decree and restored Title Suit No. 204/80 to its original stage. 2. A Title Suit No. 204/80 was filed by Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 6 for partition of the suit land. The Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 6 are the sisters of Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2. It appears that subsequently on the basis of a compromise petition, an ex parte preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 24th August, 1987, by which the plaintiffs were directed to take steps for appointment of Pleader Commissioner to carve out separate Patti. Subsequently, the defendants of the suit filed a petition for recalling the order of appointment of Pleader Commissioner on the ground that the same was not necessary in the light of the compromise petition. Thereafter, final judgment and decree were passed on 19th March 1988/07th April 1988 Subsequently Opposite Party 1st set (Aliur Rahman and Abdul Aziz) filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree and final decree. The same was registered as Misc. Case No. 11/88. It was submitted on behalf of the Opposite party 1st set that in the title suit, though the parties agreed for compromise and the opposite party 1st sot had admitted that the compromise petition will be drafted and placed before them, but subsequently it came to their notice after leaving the Court that a preliminary decree has been prepared on the basis of a so called compromise petition dated 14th July, 1987 which was only signed by the Opposite parties and their lawyers and not by the opposite party 1st set, who were parties to the said suit. It was alleged that the compromise decree was obtained by the parties fraudulently allotting worst of the plots in favour of the opposite party 1st set, who are the applicants of the Misc. Case No. 11/88. After hearing the parties and examination of evidences and witnesses, the court below passed the impugned order dated 29th April, 1994 and allowed the said Misc. Case No. 11/88. After hearing the parties and examination of evidences and witnesses, the court below passed the impugned order dated 29th April, 1994 and allowed the said Misc. Case No. 11/88 with specific finding that the compromise petition was not signed by the applicants (Opposite party 1st set herein) or their Advocates and thereby the share should not have been carved out as was done by the preliminary and final decree. 3. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that only one application was filed by the Opposite party 1st set for setting aside both the preliminary and final decree. Further, according to him, the said petition under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151, C.P.C. having been filed on 12th May, 1988, the petition was barred by limitation and was not maintainable According to him, the court below would not have allowed the same in absence of a petition, for condonation of delay. 4. The counsel for the Opposite party 1st set, while highlighted the merit of their claim, relied on a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1972 Pat 17 , and submitted that even if there was some delay, the court below had inherent power under Section 151, C.P.C. to pass necessary orders in the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. 5. I have heard the parties and have peursed the impugned order dated 29th April, 1994. In the present case, admittedly, the final decree was prepared on 7th April, 1988. The petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151, C.P.C. was filed by the Opposite party 1st set on 12th May, 1988. In this back-ground, I hold that the petition was filed by the Opposite party 1st set well within the time on the date of final decree. 6. So far as preliminary decree is concerned, even if it is held that the petition was not maintainable against the same in absence of a petition for conodonation of delay, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners. Admittedly, the compromise petition was filed by the petitioner without obtaining the signatures of the contesting opposite party 1st set and/or their lawyers. They obtained the ex parte compromise decree. Admittedly, the compromise petition was filed by the petitioner without obtaining the signatures of the contesting opposite party 1st set and/or their lawyers. They obtained the ex parte compromise decree. This, fact having not been denied by the petitioners the final decree is fit to be set aside and rightly been set aside by the court below. The moment the final decree is set aside the ex parte order of preliminary decree dated 24th August, 1987 stands revived by the said order, it was ordered by the court below to appoint Pleader Commissioner to carve out separate Patti in favour of the parties. If the impugned order is allowed to continue, it will have same effect amounting to remittance of the suit for carving out the patti in favour of the parties through a Pleader Commissioner. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The civil revision application stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.