JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 26.9.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chamba, District Chamba in CMA No. 96 of 2003 rejecting the application filed by the present petitioners for being arrayed as respondents in the application filed by the decree holder for passing a final decree. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that Yudhvir Singh, respondent No.1 herein, filed a suit against Champa Devi, respondent No.2 herein, and others claiming share in the suit property and partition thereof. This suit was filed in the year 1989 and a preliminary decree in the suit was passed on 4.6.1991 determining the shares of the parties in the suit land. 3. Shri Devi Chand and Bhairo Singh, predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners, were not parties to the said suit. They filed an application for correction of the revenue record and the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Chamba vide his order dated 29.1.1995 ordered the correction of the record and names of Devi Chand and Bhairo Singh were shown as owners in the revenue record. It appears that name of one Chameli Devi was also ordered to be brought in as one of the owners. Order in favour of Chameli Devi was passed on 29.1.1994 and mutation in her favour was attested on 20.10.1994. Thereafter Chameli Devi filed a suit challenging the correctness of the preliminary decree itself. Jai Prakash, one of the petitioners filed written statement admitting the case of Chameli Devi. This suit was dismissed in default on 13.08.2002. Thereafter the present application was filed on 25.11.2006. 4. According to the applicants they were not aware about the pendency of the suit and hence could not file the application. In reply to the application respondents took a specific plea that this averment made by the applicants was false because in the suit filed by Chameli Devi applicant Jai Prakash had filed a written statement. The applicants were respondents in the said suit and therefore, they were aware about the earlier proceedings. Though rejoinder was filed by the applicants to the reply filed, no specific averment has been made with regard to the suit filed by Chameli Devi or the written statement filed therein by Jai Prakash. This clearly shows that this fact has not been specifically denied. Though rejoinder was filed by the applicants to the reply filed, no specific averment has been made with regard to the suit filed by Chameli Devi or the written statement filed therein by Jai Prakash. This clearly shows that this fact has not been specifically denied. In these circumstances the applicants at this stage cannot pray that they be impleaded as party in the suit for partition. The rights of the parties are determined at the time of passing of the preliminary decree and the final decree is only a process in aid of implementing the preliminary decree whereby the property is actually partitioned by metes and bounds or put to auction etc. as the Court finds fit. At this stage without getting the earlier preliminary decree set-aside this application is not maintainable. The orders of the revenue Court cannot bind the Civil Court and it was the duty of the petitioner to have approached the Civil Court at the earliest stage. Since one suit challenging the earlier decree has already been dismissed in default, in which suit some of the applicants were parties, the second application would also not lie. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected.