JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Nag, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 97 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the final decree and order dated 28.03.2019, passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit(Partition) No.112 of 1998. 3. The present appeal revolves around very short campus. The respondents No.1(b), 1(c), 1(d) and 2 had instituted a suit for partition against the defendants being the plaintiffs. There were as many as nine defendants when the suit was filed by late Monoranjan Roy, the predecessor of the said plaintiff-respondents. The present appellants, i.e. Smt. Amiya Prabha Roy and Sri Shyam Lal Roy were impleaded as defendants No.7 and 8 in the Title Suit. All the defendants had received notices issued upon them by the learned Court. Some of the defendants contested the suit. 4. Issues were framed and evidences were recorded. After conclusion of recording evidence, learned trial Court had heard the arguments of the contesting parties. Thereafter, judgment was passed and preliminary decree was drawn. 5. Mr. Dhar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Amiya Prabha Roy and Shyam Lal Roy(the original defendants No.7 and 8 respectively in the title suit), at the very outset, has submitted that the present appellants never appeared and contested the suit. Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents has submitted that the defendants-appellant No.7 and 8, i.e. the present appellants were very much present and contested the suit. The above submission of Mr. Laskar, learned counsel leads me to peruse the written statement filed by the defendants-appellant. It appears that the defendant No.7, Amiya Prabha Roy, the appellant No.1 and defendant No.8, Shyam Lal Roy, the appellant No.2, in this appeal, both appeared and contested the suit by filing written statements and participated in the further proceeding of the case. 6. The defendants-respondent No.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, namely Sri Pran Krishna Roy, Sri Gouranga Chandra Roy, Sri Bijoy Krishna Roy, Smt. Mira Roy Choudhury and Sri Mrinal Kanti Roy, had preferred appeal challenging the said preliminary decree dated 03.07.2001. The said first appeal was registered as RFA No.38 of 2001 before the High Court. 6. The defendants-respondent No.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, namely Sri Pran Krishna Roy, Sri Gouranga Chandra Roy, Sri Bijoy Krishna Roy, Smt. Mira Roy Choudhury and Sri Mrinal Kanti Roy, had preferred appeal challenging the said preliminary decree dated 03.07.2001. The said first appeal was registered as RFA No.38 of 2001 before the High Court. However, the appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 26.11.2013. It is specifically submitted by Mr. Dhar, learned senior counsel that the present appellants did not prefer any appeal against the preliminary decree. 7. Thereafter, the plaintiffs had filed an applicatio1n for drawing up final decree. The Court appointed Survey Commissioner. The Survey Commissioner had submitted report firstly on 01.03.2019, which was rejected by the Court and directed to resurvey the decretal land. In pursuance of such direction, the Survey Commissioner again surveyed the land and submitted another report on 18.03.2019, which also was rejected by the Court vide order dated 25.03.2019. While rejecting the report of the Survey Commissioner under the order dated 25.03.2019, the learned trial Court had directed the Survey Commissioner to again resurvey the decretal land physically and the learned Court had fixed the next date on 28.03.2019. The Survey Commissioner had submitted his report on 26.03.2019. According to learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, there was no change in the report dated 18.03.2019 and 26.03.2019, and as such, the said report was to be treated as perverse. On 28.03.2019, the Court had accepted the Survey Commissioner's report dated 26.03.2019, and accordingly the learned Court had drawn up the final decree vide order 28.03.2019. 8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order and final decree dated 28.03.2019, the present appellants who were the original defendant Nos.7 and 8 in the partition suit have preferred the instant appeal before this Court. 9. Mr. Dhar, learned senior counsel has submitted that the appellant-defendant Nos.7 and 8 were seriously prejudiced since the learned Court did not allow any time to them to file objection. To reinforce his submission, learned senior counsel has submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have fixed a date inviting objections from the defendants before drawing the final decree. As such, the said order dated 28.03.2019 and the final decree thereof are liable to be set aside and quashed. 10. To reinforce his submission, learned senior counsel has submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have fixed a date inviting objections from the defendants before drawing the final decree. As such, the said order dated 28.03.2019 and the final decree thereof are liable to be set aside and quashed. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. I have also gone through the contents of the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned trial Court in TS(P) No.112 of 1998 which is impugned in the Memo of appeal. It is necessary to reproduce the said order dated 28.03.2019, for convenience, in extenso: 'Today is fixed for filing objection by parties against the report of Survey Commissioner, if any/hearing and order. Ld. Advocate Mr. H. Laskar on behalf of the plaintiff is present. Ld. Advocate Mr. D. De on behalf of defendants is also present. No objection filed from any of the parties in the suit against the report of Survey Commissioner dated 26-03-2019 nor made any verbal objection by Ld. Advocates of the plaintiffs and defendants side. Hence, it shall be presumed that parties are satisfied with the report of Survey Commissioner dated 26-03-2019 submitted in the suit. Perused the record. After hearing learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record and report of the survey commissioner dated 26-03-2019, it appears that , Survey Commissioner namely Sri Mihir Dey went to the suit land for physical survey and demarcation of the suit land and took fixed point for measurement from North- East corner of the suit land, as agreed by the parties. From the report it again appears that Survey Commissioner took the help of helper along with him for physical survey and demarcation of the suit land and after completion of measurement, prepared field book/partition schedule of the measurement of demarcation by preparing a hand sketch map showing the number of plots of every party as entitled against their individual plots. Thereafter, obtained signatures of the parties of the suit and people present as witness during the physical survey and demarcation of the suit land in the separate sheet. Report also reflects that calculation was also made and verified and thereafter, prepared hand sketch map of the present position of the suit land by way of measurement. Thereafter, obtained signatures of the parties of the suit and people present as witness during the physical survey and demarcation of the suit land in the separate sheet. Report also reflects that calculation was also made and verified and thereafter, prepared hand sketch map of the present position of the suit land by way of measurement. The above contents of physical survey and demarcation of suit land report of the Survey Commissioner in the suit, appears to be properly done and executed as per preliminary decree and to the satisfaction of the parties and also as per direction of the court. Hence, the report of Survey Commissioner dated 26-03-2019 along with a copy of the share of plots of each individual parties and the hand sketch map therein, is hereby allowed and accepted in the suit and shall form as part of the final decree. Sheristadar of this establishment is, therefore, hereby directed to prepare final decree accordingly and place the same before me within 15 days from today, latest by 13-04-2019. Thus, the suit is disposed of accordingly. Make necessary entry in the relevant T.R.' 11. The striking feature of the said order dated 28.03.2019 is that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants had made any verbal objection to the report of the Survey Commissioner dated 26.03.2019. Even the present appellants, i.e. the defendants No.7 and 8 did not make any prayer even verbally to accommodate them and fix another date for filing objection. After considering this aspect, the learned trial Court had reasonably presumed that the parties were satisfied with the report of the Survey Commissioner dated 26.03.2019. In view of the aforesaid fact, I do not find any merit in the submission of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the defendants No.7 and 8 who are the appellants of the present appeal had not been given any opportunity to raise their objection against the report of the Survey Commissioner. Accordingly, this submission of learned senior counsel is repelled. 12. Now, dealing with the submission of learned senior counsel that the report of the Survey Commissioner dated 26.03.2019 had suffered from serious infirmity as there was no change surfaced in the said report, if the said report is read with the report dated 18.03.2019. Accordingly, this submission of learned senior counsel is repelled. 12. Now, dealing with the submission of learned senior counsel that the report of the Survey Commissioner dated 26.03.2019 had suffered from serious infirmity as there was no change surfaced in the said report, if the said report is read with the report dated 18.03.2019. Again, I cannot accept this submission of learned senior counsel on the ground that though the defendants were represented through their learned counsels they did not raise any objection nor made any submission asking for some accommodation to raise their objection. Furthermore, from the order dated 20.03.2019 it is emanated that the learned trial Court had gone through the reports and found the contents of physical survey and demarcation of the suit land and report of the Survey Commissioner are properly done and executed as per preliminary decree and to the satisfaction of the parties and also as per direction of the Court. 13. In view of this, I find no merit in the present appeal, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.