Order 1. These two civil revisions by defendant no.4 and defendant nos. 5 and 6 respectively are directed against order dated 20th January 1997 by which the 3rd Subordinate Judge, Patna, rejected their prayer to recall the earlier order dated 7th February 1996. 2. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy, some facts may be stated as follows. The plaintiffs opposite party filed Title Suit No. 356/24 of 1980/86, inter alia for partition as well as for declaration that certain sale deed executed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant nos. 4, 5 and 6 i.e. petitioners herein are not binding on them. they also prayed for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed. The plaintiffs, defendant nos. 1 and 2 and defendant no. 3 were granted 1/3rd share each in the suit property. The court also declared that the two sale deed in question were not binding on the plaintiffs. Defendant nos.4, 5 and 6 i.e. the petitioners herein preferred separate title appeals, which were dismissed on 29th July 1995. Against the judgment, Second Appeal Nos. 210 of 1995 and 236 of 1995 have been filed and the same are pending in this Court. Second Appeal No. 236 of 1995 is said to have been admitted. 3. In the meantime, defendant no.3 died. After her death, the plaintiffs filed application to expunge her name from the decree and to direct and Advocate Commissioner, who had been appointed in the final decree proceeding, which was levied by the plaintiffs, to allot 1/2 share in the suit property to the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2 respectively, instead of 1/3rd share allotted to them by the preliminary decree. The court allowed the prayer on 7th February 1996. The petitioners filed application for recall of the said order, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R No. 238 of 1997, submitted that the correctness of the decree of the court below is under challenge in the second appeals, the court below, therefore, should not have made any modification in the decree. In response to the observation of the court, he submitted that until the second appeals are decided, the share of defendant no. 3 should be kept in abeyance. 5. I am afraid, the course suggested by the counsel for the petitioners is not at all warranted. In response to the observation of the court, he submitted that until the second appeals are decided, the share of defendant no. 3 should be kept in abeyance. 5. I am afraid, the course suggested by the counsel for the petitioners is not at all warranted. As indicated above, it is only the plaintiffs, defendant nos. 1 and 2 and defendant no.3 (now dead) who were allotted shares in the suit property. The petitioners are purchasers from defendant no.3. The sale deeds have been held to be not binding on the plaintiffs. Unless and until the decree of the court below is set aside, the petitioners cannot claim any interest in the suit property. It is only after the petitioners succeed in the second appeals that they would be entitled to the share allotted to defendant no.3. Counsel agreed that this is the correct position in law but pointed out that in the preliminary decree only share of the parties was determined. After lands, including the land of the share of defendant no.3, are allotted to the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 2 half and half, complications may arise in future, in the event of success of the petitioners in the second appeals. 6. This apprehension, if I may say so, is without any basis. It is true that pursuant to the impugned order dated 7.2.96, the lands which would have been allotted to the share of defendant no.3 would now be allotted half and half to the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2. But it does not mean that the petitioners would be deprived of their share if they succeed in the second appeals. Necessarily, the lands will have to be re-carved and allotted. It goes without saying that the final decree which is in offing will abide by the judgment in the second appeals. Besides, it is open to the petitioners to file appeal against the final decree. 7. Counsel placed reliance on Surya Kant Jha vs. Brahmdeo Jha (1984 PLJR 714). In that case, the suit was filed by several plaintiffs for partition. A joint preliminary decree was passed in their favour. However, on application by one of the plaintiffs at the stage of preparation of final decree the court carved out a separate share for him. 7. Counsel placed reliance on Surya Kant Jha vs. Brahmdeo Jha (1984 PLJR 714). In that case, the suit was filed by several plaintiffs for partition. A joint preliminary decree was passed in their favour. However, on application by one of the plaintiffs at the stage of preparation of final decree the court carved out a separate share for him. This Court held that final decree cannot go behind the preliminary decree and the preliminary decree cannot be varied so as to effect further partition amongst the plaintiffs inter se. The ratio of the said case is not at all applicable in the present case. 8. To sum up, so long as the decree of the court below stands, the petitioners cannot object to the re-allotment or re-carving out the shares/lands to the successful parties, secondly, the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2 being admittedly the exclusive heirs of defendant no.3, the lands allotted to her share are to devolve on them. And thirdly, lands may be re-carved and allotted pursuant to decree in the second appeals. 9. In the above premises, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. These civil revisions are dismissed.