Judgment : 1. Challenge in the appeal is against the Order of remand passed in A.S. No. 28/2012 by the learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara. 2. Short facts necessary for disposal of the appeal can be summed up thus: First respondent in the appeal, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, moved an application in a suit for partition (O.S.No. 107/1977 of the Additional Munsiff, Neyyattinkara) after passing of final decree in that suit, for passing a supplementary preliminary decree treating previous preliminary decree and final decree, and, also some other orders passed on a few interlocutory applications, as illegal, null and void. Subject matter involved in O.S.No.107/1977 formed part of the property involved in an earlier suit for partition viz; O.S.No.290/1962. O.S.No.107/1977 was instituted by plaintiff, one among the parties in the previous suit, O.S.No.290/1962, to claim his share for which no preliminary decree was passed earlier but already determined. Predecessor of the applicant, who had obtained assignment from a sharer, was also one of the defendants in O.S.No. 290/1962 and in the subsequently instituted suit O.S.No. 107/1977. In the earlier suit (O.S.No. 290/1962) only the plaintiff and 18th defendant in that suit had obtained preliminary decree for partition of their shares and, later, a final decree was also passed in their favour. O.S.No. 107/1977 was instituted by the 21st defendant in the earlier suit. His right to have share in the property was considered and decided under the judgment passed in the previous suit. Predecessor of applicant, who was impleaded as 16th defendant in O.S.No. 107/1977 was declared ex-parte. A preliminary decree was passed in favour of plaintiff in that suit declaring his share in the plaint property allowing him to move for passing final decree. While his application for final decree was pending, appellant and some others, who were among the defendants in the suit, moved separate applications for passing supplementary preliminary decrees for declaring and allotting their shares, and its division by metes and bounds. By the time such applications were moved by them, father of applicant had already passed away, but, with him as a party – a dead person – decrees were passed in favour of appellant and others, is the case of applicant for treating such supplementary preliminary decrees and final decrees passed later in the suit as null and void and for passing a preliminary decree declaring his share in the property. By the time he moved an application as aforesaid, final decree based on the supplementary preliminary decrees obtained by appellant and others had also been passed by the court. Against the final decrees passed, with a petition to condone delay, simultaneously with the application moved for passing supplementary decree as indicated earlier, applicant filed an appeal as A.S.No. 114/2010. Meanwhile, the appellants took steps for executing the final decree, and, thereupon, on the application moved by applicant, trial court passed an order staying the execution proceedings (E.P.No. 24/2010). Against the order of stay first appellant herein preferred an original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. After hearing both sides granting liberty to applicant to choose and pursue one among the two proceedings initiated by them – one of them arising from the application moved for passing fresh preliminary decree after setting aside the preliminary decree and final decrees previously passed, and the other, the appeal preferred against the final decree with petition to condone delay - the original petition was disposed. Applicant gave up his challenges by appeal against the final decree, and pursued the application moved before the trial court to declare his share by passing a supplementary preliminary decree after setting aside the preliminary decree and final decrees passed earlier in the suit. Accepting the objections raised by appellant and others, respondents in the application, challenging its maintainability, learned munsiff turned down the application as not maintainable. Order dated 17.02.2012 passed by learned additional munsiff was challenged by appellant in appeal, A.S.No. 28/2012 before Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. Learned sub judge set aside the order of learned munsiff holding that the application is maintainable and remitted the case for consideration and disposal afresh. That Order of remand is challenged in this appeal. 3. I heard counsel on both sides. At the threshold itself learned counsel for applicant (first respondent in the appeal) fairly submitted that the application as framed and filed before munsiff may not lie under law once a final decree had already been passed in the suit. That Order of remand is challenged in this appeal. 3. I heard counsel on both sides. At the threshold itself learned counsel for applicant (first respondent in the appeal) fairly submitted that the application as framed and filed before munsiff may not lie under law once a final decree had already been passed in the suit. But, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in view of the observations/directions given in the original petition already disposed by this Court applicant should be given an opportunity either to seek withdrawal of that application with liberty to file a proper petition in accordance with law or to amend the prayers canvassed in the petition already filed, is the plea of counsel. Submissions made by counsel for applicant as above are resisted by learned counsel for appellants contending that the very application and also the appeal preferred challenging the order of learned munsiff are not entertainable under law. 4. Considering the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find the question whether the supplementary decree and final decree passed can be assailed by petitioners on the challenge canvassed by him referable to the death of his predecessor has not been considered by learned munsiff whatever be the way he framed and filed this application. If the application was not entertainable for the reason that it was moved after passing of final decree in the suit, it should have invited an order of rejection. An order of rejection would not have effected his right to ventilate his grievance if he has any other remedy under law taking appropriate proceedings. But, by the orders passed by both the courts below, the applicant has been denied of opportunity to canvass his challenge that the decree is a nullity for the reason that it had been passed against a dead person, his predecessor. I am not adverting to the Order passed by learned munsiff and also judgment of sub judge on the various aspects addressed before them since I find that the application should have received rejection without going into the merits when no court could have entertained such application for passing a supplementary preliminary decree after passing of a final decree in the suit. After passing of final decree, it may be open to any person aggrieved by such decree to impeach it as vitiated by fraud, if he has justifiable grounds to do so,to seek for setting aside that decree. If the decree was a nullity for the reason that it had been passed against a dead person,then,the application should be one for setting aside the final decree and not for passing a supplementary final decree. Passing of a supplementary preliminary decree would arise only if the final decree already passed is set aside accepting the case that it is nullity. When that be the case, I find the order of remand dehors the findings made by learned sub judge has to be retained giving the applicant a chance either to seek permission to withdraw his application or for moving an amendment application to mould the reliefs as requested by his counsel. I am not expressing any opinion over the entitlement of applicant to seek withdrawal or for amending the reliefs canvassed in the petition,which, if canvassed of, has to be decided by learned munsiff on its merits after hearing the parties in the proceedings. If application as represented by counsel for petitioner,either for withdrawal or amendment is moved within a period of thirty days from the date of this judgment, learned munsiff shall consider and decide it expeditiously after providing an opportunity to the respondents to raise their objections to such application, and also hearing both sides in the matter. If no such application as indicated is filed by the applicant within the time fixed by the applicant, then it would entail the dismissal of his application. Appeal is disposed as indicated above directing learned munsiff to make every endeavor to dispose the proceedings before the mid-summer vacation, 2014.