Judgment :- 1. The revision petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.111 of 2012 in I.A.No.10 of 2011 in O.S.No.103 of 2004, dated 04.01.2013, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. 2. Material on record discloses that a suit in O.S.No.103 of 2004, has been filed by Mrs.Zulaiha Bivi, first respondent herein, against 10 defendants, for the following reliefs, "(a) directing partition and separate possession of her 1/16 share in the two items of properties described in Schedules 1 and B hereto.” (b) directing the first defendant to pay the sum of Rs.11,250/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date plaint till the date of realisation thereof. (c) appointing an advocate commissioner to make a local inspection of the two items of properties and to file a report to this Court suggesting the mode of division and distribution. (d) “directing the 1st defendant to deposit into this Court to the credit of this suit the future rental collections until this Court passes appropriate orders as to the apportionment thereof to the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 9." 3. The Schedule properties, for which, partition has been sought for, are described in Schedules 'A' and 'B', which are as follows: Schedule – A The property consisting of the house and ground bearing Door No.18/3, South Main Road, Nidur, Mayiladuthurai Taluk, Nagapattinam District, measuring in extent 17 Cents consisting of two bits of land one of which of the extent of 12½ cents and the other of the extent of 4½ Cents comprised in Survey No.335 of Nidur Village, Mayiladuthurai Taluk, Nagapattinam District bounded on the North by : South Main Road, South by : Devasthanam Sarvamaniyam Land East by : Abdul Hameed Sahib's Property and Mir Gulam Hussain's Property West by : Abdul Rahim's Property within the Registration District of Nagapattinam and Sub-Registration District of Mayiladuthurai. The market value of the property according to the plaintiff's estimate is Rs.20,00,000/-. The market value of the property according to the plaintiff's estimate is Rs.20,00,000/-. Schedule – B The property consisting of the house and ground, bearing door Nos.39, 39A and 39B of Big Bazaar Street, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District, measuring in extent 5938 Sq.Ft., comprised in T.S.Nos.499 and 500 of Mayiladuthurai Village and Taluk, Nagapattinam District bounded on the North by : Big Bazaar Street South by : Muncipal Lane East by : Nagarathar Madam West by : Abdul Rahim's Property within the Registration District of Nagapattinam and Sub-Registration District of Mayiladuthurai. The said property is lying within the Municipal limits being situated in Ward No.II, Block No.4. 4. Defendants 1 to 5 have remained ex parte. Defendants 6 to 10 have contested the suit. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge has framed the following points for consideration, "(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of money from the 1st defendant? (3) “To what relief?" 5. Before the lower Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, one Mr.Mohammed Kadar has been examined as PW.1 and he has marked three documents, Exs.P1 to P3. On the side of the defendants, one Mr.Jayaveerapandian, has been examined as RW.1 and marked two documents, Exs.B1 and B2. Vide judgment and decree, dated 17.01.2006, a preliminary decree has been granted for the following reliefs, "(1) There shall be a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share, in respect of A and B Schedule Property in the suit.” (2) The relief of partition is granted, subject to the tenancy rights of the 10th defendant in the B Schedule property in the suit. (3) The 1st defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.11,250/- towards rent, to the plaintiff. (4) In respect of past arrears of rent, sought for from the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs can take separate proceedings under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC. (5) In order to divide the suit properties by metes and bounds, and for passing final decree, the plaintiff has to take steps for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. (6) “The parties shall bear their respective costs. The costs of the plaintiff is fixed at Rs.16,009/- and the costs of the 10th defendant is fixed at Rs.520/- and costs of respondents 6 to 9 is fixed at Rs.14,005/-." 6. (6) “The parties shall bear their respective costs. The costs of the plaintiff is fixed at Rs.16,009/- and the costs of the 10th defendant is fixed at Rs.520/- and costs of respondents 6 to 9 is fixed at Rs.14,005/-." 6. Thereafter, a final decree petition in I.A.No.10 of 2011, has been filed, under Order 20 Rule 18 and Section 151 CPC., for the following reliefs, "(a) order to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the A and B Schedule properties mentioned in the Preliminary Decree and allot her 1/6th share by metes and bounds with reference to good and bad soil and also for convenience of enjoyment and put him in possession of the same.” (b) to direct the Commissioner to determine the future profits from the date of plaint 22.11.2004 as per the terms of the decree. (c) “to award the costs of the petitioner." 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents/defendants 2, 4 and 5, stating that they have filed an application to set aide the ex parte decree, under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and that they have a good case. Hence, they have prayed for dismissal of the final decree petition. 8. In the mean time, the third defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.111 of 2012, stating that after the receipt of the summons from the Court, she has approached the defendants 2, 4 and 5 and that they obtained her signature in the Vakalat. Thereafter, she did not know as what happened to the same. Further, she has no objection for the plaintiff's share in the suit properties. However, only when an Advocate Commissioner came to her house to measure the property, she came to know about the passing of the exparte preliminary decree on 17.01.2006 and that the property in her possession has also been brought for auction. According to her, there is a valuable market complex at Chennai, which is a family property and that the plaintiff has wantonly omitted to include the same in the suit schedule. According to her, there is a valuable market complex at Chennai, which is a family property and that the plaintiff has wantonly omitted to include the same in the suit schedule. In the abovesaid circumstances, she has sought for a direction to include the property at Chennai, in the final decree proceedings, which is as follows: "Ground and First floor flat together with the proportionate undivided share in the site with common amenities in the five storeyed building bearing present door No.623 corresponding to Old door No.123-D, Mount Road (Anna Salai) Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006, bounded on the North by : The property belonging to Rasheed known as Rasheed Mansion. South by : The property bearing No.123-B Mount Road belonging to Messrs.O.A.Abubakkar and K.M.Saheed. East by : The property owned by Messrs.Khivraj Chordia, Devraj Chordia and Navaratanmull Chordia and the property Mr.Mohammed Ali and Sakina Begum. West by : The common road. Measuring about Ground Floor : 1 ground and 2315 Sq.Ft., Measuring about First Floor : 1 ground and 2315 Sq.Ft., “Re-Survey Nos.46 (Part) and 49/1 (part) and CC.Nos.144 (Part) and 69 (Part) of Nungambakkam Village, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District." 9. Opposing the said petition filed to include the abovesaid property in the final decree proceedings, the plaintiff in her counter affidavit, has contended that it is false to state that the property at Chennai has been left out in the suit schedule, wantonly. The said property had already been divided and that the entire floor has been allotted to the mother of the third defendant, who in turn has given the same to the third defendant. According to the plaintiff, the third defendant is in possession of the same, eversince 1994 and that she has been receiving huge rent for the same. The oral family arrangement is also with the third defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has submitted that the the third defendant, having suppressed all these facts, has come forward with a plea that the Chennai property has not been mentioned in the suit schedule. 10. According to the plaintiff, the third defendant, who is enjoying the 1st item of the property, does not want the property to be sold in public auction. The plaintiff has also stated that the third defendant has been receiving rent from the 2nd item of the suit property at Mayiladuthurai. 10. According to the plaintiff, the third defendant, who is enjoying the 1st item of the property, does not want the property to be sold in public auction. The plaintiff has also stated that the third defendant has been receiving rent from the 2nd item of the suit property at Mayiladuthurai. It is also her contention that only to stall the auction of the property, the third defendant has come forward with the above application, at the time, when the Commissioner has already made wide publicity for auctioning the property. In the abovesaid circumstances, she has submitted that there is no necessity to include the property at Chennai in the final decree proceedings and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the application. 11. Mr.Mohamed Rafiq, one of the defendants, has filed a counter affidavit, contending inter alia that no property at Chennai, is available for division. He has further submitted that the third defendant alone is enjoying the properties for the past several years and that she is residing in the plaint 'A' Schedule house and receiving rent from the plaint 'B' Schedule, commercial building, at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the 10th defendant. It is the further contention of the abovesaid defendant that he is residing in a rental house with his family, without any income from the suit properties and hence, sought for a direction to third defendant/revision petitioner to deposit the rent, sofar, collected from the 10th defendant. He has also prayed for dismissal of the application in I.A.No.111 of 2012. 12. Upon consideration of pleadings in the Interlocutory Applications, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Myladuthurai, has framed the following point for consideration, 13. The revision petitioner has been examined as PW.1 and she has marked Ex.P1 –Sale Deed, dated 25.04.1974. No oral or documentary has been let in by the plaintiff. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, Ex.P1 and also placing reliance on the decisions in Haji Mohamed Abdullah and others v. C.Abdul Rahman and others reported in AIR 1964 Mad. 234 andKhazir Bhat v. Ahmed Dar reported in AIR 1960 J & K 57, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Myladuthurai, by order and decree, dated 04.01.2013, dismissed the application filed for inclusion of the property, at Chennai, in the final decree proceedings. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 14. 234 andKhazir Bhat v. Ahmed Dar reported in AIR 1960 J & K 57, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Myladuthurai, by order and decree, dated 04.01.2013, dismissed the application filed for inclusion of the property, at Chennai, in the final decree proceedings. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 14. Assailing the correctness of the order, Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submitted that the trial Court has erred in concluding that the property at Chennai, cannot be included in the final decree proceedings. He further submitted that the existence of the property at Chennai, has been suppressed in the plaint averments. 15. Placing reliance on decisions in Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakirir Yanadi reported in 2011 (9) SCC 788 and Rani v. Chandra reported in 2012 (7) MLJ 892 , learned counselsubmitted that any number of preliminary decrees can be passed in a suit for partition and even an amendment can be allowed and therefore, he submitted that the Court below, instead of bringing 1st item of the suit property, a dwelling house, for auction, can include the property at Chennai, which is a commercial building and that by such inclusion and subsequent division, interest of justice of all parties would be met. According to him, on the other hand, if the property at Chennai, is not included and 1st item of the suit property has to be brought for auction, for the purpose of division of shares, then it would cause serious prejudice. For the abovesaid reasons, he submitted that the trial Court has failed to exercise its discretion judicially and hence, prayed for setting aside the order. He reiterated that the property in Chennai, is still available for division. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 16. Before adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to consider the decisions relied on by the revision petitioner. 17. In Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakirir Yanadi reported in 2011 (9) SCC 788 , at Paragraphs 14, 19 and 21, held as follows: "Whether the petition is maintainable or not?" "14. A preliminary decree determines the rights and interests of the parties. The suit for partition is not disposed of by passing of the preliminary decree. 17. In Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakirir Yanadi reported in 2011 (9) SCC 788 , at Paragraphs 14, 19 and 21, held as follows: "Whether the petition is maintainable or not?" "14. A preliminary decree determines the rights and interests of the parties. The suit for partition is not disposed of by passing of the preliminary decree. It is by a final decree that the immovable property of joint Hindu family is partitioned by metes and bounds. After the passing of the preliminary decree, the suit continues until the final decree is passed. If in the interregnum i.e. after passing of the preliminary decree and before the final decree is passed, the events and supervening circumstances occur necessitating change in shares, there is no impediment for the court to amend the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree redetermining the rights and interests of the parties having regard to the changed situation.” 19. The High Court was clearly in error in not properly appreciating the scope of Order XX Rule 18 of C.P.C. In a suit for partition of immovable property, if such property is not assessed to the payment of revenue to the government, ordinarily passing of a preliminary decree declaring the share of the parties may be required. The court would thereafter proceed for preparation of final decree. In Phoolchand1, this Court has stated the legal position that C.P.C. creates no impediment for even more than one preliminary decree if after passing of the preliminary decree events have taken place necessitating the readjustment of shares as declared in the preliminary decree. The court has always power to revise the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree if the situation in the changed circumstances so demand. A suit for partition continues after the passing of the preliminary decree and the proceedings in the suit get extinguished only on passing of the final decree. It is not correct statement of law that once a preliminary decree has been passed, it is not capable of modification. It needs no emphasis that the rights of the parties in a partition suit should be settled once for all in that suit alone and no other proceedings. 21. It is not correct statement of law that once a preliminary decree has been passed, it is not capable of modification. It needs no emphasis that the rights of the parties in a partition suit should be settled once for all in that suit alone and no other proceedings. 21. It is true that final decree is always required to be in conformity with the preliminary decree but that does not mean that a preliminary decree, before the final decree is passed, cannot be altered or amended or modified by the trial court in the event of changed or supervening circumstances even if no appeal has been preferred from such preliminary decree." 18. In Rani v. Chandra reported in 2012 (7) MLJ 892 , following a decision in A.A.Ganga v. A.R.Usha [ 2010(4) CTC 331 ], on the facts of the reported case, this Court held that even if the suit is amended, there is no total bar for allowing the amendment, after the commencement of the trial and if the parties are able to satisfy the requirement as contemplated as per proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, the amendment can be allowed. 19. There is no quarrel over the abovesaid legal pronouncement, as to the passing of more than one preliminary decrees, prior to passing of the final decree and that an amendment to the suit for partition, can be made even after, the commencement of the trial, if the parties are able to satisfy the requirement, as contemplated, as per proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. First of all, no amendment has been sought for, by the revision petitioner, before the commencement of trial and no petition has been filed, before the passing of the preliminary decree, for inclusion of the property at Chennai. On the other hand, the revision petition has consented to division of shares, mentioned in the suit schedule properties. When division has to be made by metes and bounds and if the property is physically indivisible, by metes and bounds, to provide the shares apportioned, as per the preliminary decree, there is no other alternative, except to bring it for sale, in public auction. Even accepting that an amendment could be made, after the passing of the preliminary decree, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Danduri Koteshwaran's case (stated supra), the property should be available for division. Even accepting that an amendment could be made, after the passing of the preliminary decree, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Danduri Koteshwaran's case (stated supra), the property should be available for division. As per the version of the plaintiff and other defendants, the property at Chennai, has been partitioned long back and it does not have the status of a joint family property. In view of the above, in the humble opinion of this Court, the decisions relied on by the revision petitioner, would not lend any support to her. 20. However, material on record discloses that as early as on 17th January, 2006, a preliminary decree has been passed in the suit in O.S.No.103 of 2004 filed by Smt.Zulaika Beevi, for the reliefs stated supra. Final decree application in I.A.No.10 of 2011 has been filed. Even as per the averments made in the supporting affidavit filed in I.A.No.111 of 2012, for inclusion of a commercial complex, at Chennai, in the final decree proceedings, the third defendant/revision petitioner has candidly admitted that she had no objections for the plaintiff, taking 1/6th of the share, but her only objection is that if the commercial complex belonging to the alleged joint family, is included, she would not be disturbed, from the place, where she is presently residing. 21. The contention that the property at Chennai remained undivided has been seriously objected by the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff, stating that the said property had already been divided. The contention that there has been suppression of the existence of the said property in the plaint has been denied and in that context, reference has been made to paragraph 12 of the plaint, wherein, the plaintiff has stated as follows: "There has not been any division or distribution of the properties described in the schedules hereto which among other constituted the estate of the late S.M.Abdul Azeez. As far as the other properties are concerned, they have already been divided and distributed." 22. Thus, it could be seen that as per the plaint averments, excepting the scheduled mentioned properties, no other property remained for division. There is no material suppression of facts. The sharers have categorically stated that the property at Chennai, had already been divided and that the revision petitioner alone is receiving the rent. Thus, it could be seen that as per the plaint averments, excepting the scheduled mentioned properties, no other property remained for division. There is no material suppression of facts. The sharers have categorically stated that the property at Chennai, had already been divided and that the revision petitioner alone is receiving the rent. The Court below has also observed that when the suit for partition is filed, the revision petitioner did not have any objections, for dividing the schedule mentioned properties, by metes and bounds. 23. As rightly observed by the Court below that when the revision petitioner had candidly admitted that she had no objection for division of the suit schedule properties, including a shop and house and when the Court below has also observed that in respect of the property at Chennai, the revision petitioner can always take appropriate steps for asserting her right, which the plaintiff and other defendants, strongly deny the above status of the joint family property, and also further submitted that the division of the property had already been made. The contention that the property at Chennai ought to have been included in the final decree proceedings, cannot be accepted. The Advocate Commissioner has taken steps to bring the suit schedule properties for auction, as per the decree and in the above circumstances, the request of the revision petitioner for inclusion of the property at Chennai, for division, in lieu of the property in her possession, cannot be accepted. The contention that the Court below has committed an illegality in rejecting the application in I.A.No.111 of 2012 in I.A.No.10 of 2011 in O.S.No.103 of 2004, cannot be countenanced. The impugned order does not warrant any interference. 24. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.