JUDGMENT This is plaintiffs Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment of affirmance. Plaintiffs filed the suit for rendition of account in respect of 62.67 acres of land between the period 1971 to 1974 and decree for their share. Additional Civil Judge, Class II, Bemetra, by his judgment and decree dated 6.10.1982 passed in CS. No. 136-N80 dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs aggrieved by the same preferred appeal and the 3rd Additional District Judge, Durg, Camp. Bemetra, by his judgment and decree dated 20.11.1987, passed in Civil Appeal No. 6-A/1973, dismissed the appeal, Plaintiffs aggrieved by the same have preferred this appeal and by order dated 6.7.1988, appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law : "Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present suit for accounts was maintainable ?" Admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiffs and the defendant were the members of the Hindu Undivided Family and by a preliminary decree passed in Civil Suit No. 12A/1955, plaintiffs got 3/8th share but the final decree proceeding is still pending. According to the plaintiffs, by aforesaid judgment and decree, their share has been declared to the extent of 3/8th and the final decree proceeding is pending, but the defendant is in possession of the entire land and are using the usufructs of the same. Accordingly, plaintiff prayed for rendition of the accound for the years 1971-72 to 73-74. According to the defendant, he suffered loss of Rs. 2,500/- during the aforesaid period on account of draught and the suit filed for the year 1971-72 is barred by limitation. Plea of the defendant further was that the suit as framed, is not maintainable. Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed various issues and on consideration of the materials held that the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit for the relief claimed. It also dismissed the suit on merits. It is relevant here to state that plaintiff Top Singh filed this suit on the basis of a Will purportedly executed by Bulaurin Bai and the Trial Court on consideration of the materials found the said Will to be forged and fabricated document. It also dismissed the suit on merits. It is relevant here to state that plaintiff Top Singh filed this suit on the basis of a Will purportedly executed by Bulaurin Bai and the Trial Court on consideration of the materials found the said Will to be forged and fabricated document. Lower appellate Court in appeal has reversed the finding of the trial Court as regards to the validity of the Will, but concurred with its conclusion that the suit is not maintainable. Shri Ravish Agrawal appears on behalf of the appellants. Inspite of service on the respondents, nobody has chosen to appear in its behalf. Shri Agrawal contends that both the Courts below erred in law in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. He submits that notwithstanding the earlier suit in which a preliminary decree for partition of 3/8th share of the suit property has been passed in favour of the plaintiffs, still final decree has not been prepared and the defendant being in possession of the property, he is required to give .account and the plaintiffs are entitled for the amount to the extent of their share. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Harbir Kaur & Anr. v. Charan Singh Tiwari & Ors., AIR 1934 P&H 195. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench on consideration of the various authorities of different High Courts, preferred to take the view in conformity with the view of the Bombay High Court and it differed with the proposition of law propounded by the Patna High Court in the case of Nand Kishore Prasad Singh and Anr. v. Parmeshwar Prasad Singh & Ors. AIR 1935 Patna 80 and Udekar v. Chandra Shekhar Sahu & Ors. AIR 1961 Orissa 111. In any opinion, the question which fell for consideration before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was in relation to maintainability of the suit when the plaintiff has got the possession of his share in pursuance of the decree and in that context, it was held that the suit is maintainable. AIR 1961 Orissa 111. In any opinion, the question which fell for consideration before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was in relation to maintainability of the suit when the plaintiff has got the possession of his share in pursuance of the decree and in that context, it was held that the suit is maintainable. In the case of Udekar (supra), the Orissa High Court was required to consider as to whether after the passing of the final decree in the partition suit amongst the co-sharer it is open to one of the contesting party to bring a fresh suit of mesne profit against the other co-sharer in respect of the excess land found in their possession up to the date of the final decree and on consideration of various decisions, it held that the suit is not maintainable. Here in the present case, final decree has not yet been prepared. In my opinion, relief sought for by the plaintiffs in the present suit can well be agitated in the final decree proceeding. In concur with the conclusion of the Courts below that the suit is not maintainable. Substantial question of law framed is thus answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. In the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case however, there shall be no order as to cost.