Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant Nos. 5 and 6 from the final decree in Partition Suit No, 37/14 of 1964/1967. The plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed the aforesaid suit to declare the registered sale-deed dated 12-6-1963 in favour of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 as void, illegal and inoperative and also to declare that the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/5th share in the properties described in Schedule 1 and 2 of the plaint. 2. The suit was decreed in terms of the relief claimed for the the plaint. It may be mentioned that the present appellants had conceded to the claim of the plaintiffs. The other defendants set up different pleas which are not necessary to be recorded in this judgment. 3. Preliminary decree was prepared on 20-9-1967. Thereafter, the Pleader Commissioner was appointed for Takhtabandi some time in the year 1971. On 19-8-1971 the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the decree and to include seven plots of different khatas, total area of which comes to 1 bigha 1 dhur. According to the appellants, the lands which were later included in the amendment petition stood in the name of Bujharat. As these plots were not mentioned in the plaint there was no adjudication with regard to the defence of the appellants. It appears that the order dated 23-8-1971 amendment petition was allowed and the decree was accordingly amended and seven plots which were not originally included in the decree were included in the amended decree. 4. Appellants case is that the amendment was allowed without proper notice to the appellants. However, no appeal was preferred against the preliminary decree. The appellants filed a petition before the Pleader Commissioner on 4-1-1972 that the seven plots included by amendment was exclusive property of the defendants. The appellant filed an application on 7-1-19972 before the Subordinate Judge to recall the order dated 23-8-1971 by which amendment was allowed. The Subordinate Judge rejected the petition by order dated 24-5-1972. 5. The order allowing amendment (23-8-1971) shows that both the parties were heard and no objection was raised oh behalf of the appellants. Learned Subordinate Judge by order dated 24-6-1972 rejecting the prayer for recall of the. order observed that the amendment was allowed after hearing the parties and that the defendant-appellants had not objected. 5. The order allowing amendment (23-8-1971) shows that both the parties were heard and no objection was raised oh behalf of the appellants. Learned Subordinate Judge by order dated 24-6-1972 rejecting the prayer for recall of the. order observed that the amendment was allowed after hearing the parties and that the defendant-appellants had not objected. The order dated 24-6-1972 further shows that the objection of the appellants was that the lands had been purchased by their ancestors which was not a joint family property. In other words, the lands in dispute were exclusive property of the ancestor of the defendants. Learned Subordinate Judge rejected the prayer for recall of the order because the lawyer appearing for the appellants had conceded to the amendment. More so, the order had become final and no revision or appeal was filed against the amendment order. 6. The appellants then challenged the said order before this Court in Civil Revision No. 728 of 1972. The said civil revision was disposed of by order dated 7-9-1972 in the following terms: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, because it will be open to the petitioners in appeal against the final decree to object to the petition of the additional plots of land which were included in the plaint under the amendment order passed on the 23rd of August 1971. The application is, therefore, dismissed. 7. Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellants has raised the legality of the amendment order in view of the liberty granted to the appellants by this Court in Civil Revision No. 728 of 1972, Mr. Sinha has also raised certain objection regarding allotment of certain plots. 8. Mr. Parmeshwar Prasad, learned Counsel for the contesting plaintiffs-respondents submitted that since no appeal was preferred against the amended decree, legality of the amendment cannot be considered in appeal against the final decree. 9. Sec. 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that if the party aggrieved by the preliminary decree does not appeal from such decree, he shall be precluded from disputing its correctness in appeal which may be preferred from the final decree. As regards other objection of the appellants with regard to the allotment of share. Mr. 9. Sec. 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that if the party aggrieved by the preliminary decree does not appeal from such decree, he shall be precluded from disputing its correctness in appeal which may be preferred from the final decree. As regards other objection of the appellants with regard to the allotment of share. Mr. Prasad has submitted that all the objections have been disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge by a reasoned order and it is not open to the appellants to object to, the allotment on the grounds which have not been taken before the executing Court. He relied on Jugeshwar Singh V/s. Rijhan Singh AIR 1938 Pat 104, wherein it has been held that First Appeal to the High Court from final decree in a partition suit is really in the nature of Second Appeal in which questions of law and principle can be considered. The High Court should mainly interfere when it is shown that the lower Court in its decision was wrong on some question of principle in making the final allotment and in drawing up the decree. 10. In Smt. Ambika Bhawani Devi V/s. Gouri Kumar Devi AIR 1947 Pat 271, it was held by the Division Bench that the allotment of share by the Pleader Commissioner can be reviewed by the Subordinate Judge, who passed the final decree, and his view of the facts ought to be final unless some questions of principle in making final allotment and drawing up the decree is involved. 11. In Krishna Reddiar V/s. Ramanuja Reddiar AIR 1929 Mad 492 , it was held by the Division Bench of Madras High Court that when a party does not raise his objections before the Commissioner appointed for partition and does not object to the Commissioners report in the lower Court, he is not entitled to come up to this Court and object to the allotment of share. 12. In view of these decisions, objection raised by Mr. Sinha with regard to the plot Nos. 99 and 100, allotment of trees and other numerous objections cannot be reopened as all the objections were considered and disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge. 13. The only substantial question remains to be considered is whether the appellants can justifiably impugn the order dated 23-8-1971 and 24-6-1972. Sinha with regard to the plot Nos. 99 and 100, allotment of trees and other numerous objections cannot be reopened as all the objections were considered and disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge. 13. The only substantial question remains to be considered is whether the appellants can justifiably impugn the order dated 23-8-1971 and 24-6-1972. By the first order, amendment of decree was allowed and by the second order, prayer for recall was rejected without considering the claim of the appellants on merits. The appellants could have preferred appeal against the preliminary decree but probably in view of the order passed in Civil Revision No, 728 of 1972, they preferred appeal against the final-decree. It is well settled that no party shall suffer by the action of the Court. The order in Civil Revision No. 728/72 was probably passed under the mistaken notion that the appellants could raise the question of amendment in appeal against the final decree. It may be mentioned that the appellants had made serious allegation that his lawyer had agreed to the amendment without instruction from the appellants and it is also alleged that the lawyer got this in collusion with the defendants. 14. Learned Subordinate Judge did not consider this aspect of the matter and rejected the prayer to review the order granting amendment purely on technical ground. This Court in Civil Revision No. 728/72 clearly gave liberty to the appellants to raise this question in appeal against the final decree. The Subordinate Judge had not taken into consideration the plea of the appellants that the plots which were included in the amendment were exclusive property of the appellants. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no alternative for me but to remit the matter back to the Subordinate Judge to reconsider the application filed by the plaintiffs dated 19-8-1971 for amendment for the decree which was allowed by order dated 23-8-1971. This appeal shall remain pending and will be disposed of after the objection of the appellants with regard to the amendment is decided on merit. It is open to the parties to lead additional evidence on the question whether the plots which were included in the decree by amendment were exclusive plots of the appellants of the joint family property liable to be partitioned. It is open to the parties to lead additional evidence on the question whether the plots which were included in the decree by amendment were exclusive plots of the appellants of the joint family property liable to be partitioned. The Subordinate Judge I, Siwan is directed to dispose of the amendment application within four months of receipt of this Order and remit his finding. 16. Let the lower Court records be sent down to the First Subordinate Judge, Siwan without delay.