JUDGMENT : 1. Prima-facie, the suit appears to be misconceived in so far as the identity of the property in respect whereof it has been filed. 2. Defendant No.2 alongwith one Maruti, one Bandu and the three heirs of one Shripati were the owners of a larger property, of which the suit property forms a part. The Appellants/Plaintiffs claim to have acquired the suit property comprising of three Ares from Defendant Nos.16 and 17 each of whom owned 1.5 ares. Defendant No.16 and 17 in turn had purchased the 1.5 ares each from some of the other Defendants, who in turn had initially acquired the same from Defendant No.3. 3. Defendant No.1 on the other hand had purchased the said property from Defendant No.2. It is pertinent to note that Defendant No.2 had filed a suit for partition and possession of his 1/4th share against the other co-owners. A decree had been passed in that suit and his 1/4th share had been demarcated, partitioned by meets and bounds and handed over to him. This consisted of the suit property. 4. Thus, in effect, the share of Defendant No.3 through whom the Plaintiffs/Appellants ultimately claim, falls in the portion of the property other than that which was handed over to Defendant No.2 pursuant to a decree in the said partition suit filed by him. 5. There is nothing that warrants an interference that the decree dated 12.7.1999 suffers from any infirmity. The Plaintiffs/Appellants remedy is to seek reliefs against Defendant No.3 qua the property which has come to his share albeit apparently an undivided share in the remaining property at this stage. 6. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed. 7. The Civil Application thus does not survive and the same also stands disposed of accordingly. 8. In this matter, as in several others, a request is made that I ought to clarify that the observations in the impugned order and in this order are only a prima-facie and will not bind the learned Judge in the trial. 9. The clarification is unnecessary. It is settled law that observations passed in interlocutory proceedings are not binding at the final hearing of the suit. This would be so irrespective of whether evidence is lead or not. Different considerations apply while deciding matters at the interlocutory stage and at the final haring. 9. The clarification is unnecessary. It is settled law that observations passed in interlocutory proceedings are not binding at the final hearing of the suit. This would be so irrespective of whether evidence is lead or not. Different considerations apply while deciding matters at the interlocutory stage and at the final haring. Indeed, different considerations often apply between the ad-interim and interim stages of a proceeding. The level of proof required at each stage is different. A view to the contrary would in many cases lead to the absurd consequence of proceedings being finally adjudicated in terms of interlocutory orders. 10. In respect of a judgment on a question of law, different considerations may naturally apply but observations on facts and on mixed questions of law and fact cannot possibly bind the trial Court. The clarification sought is therefore not necessary. Ordered accordingly.