JUDGMENT : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. I.A. No.6760 of 2021. 1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners on the aforesaid I.A. filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in fling of WPC No.3525 of 2004 which was dismissed on 11.02.2009 for non-compliance of the order dated 28.01.2009 for fresh service of notice to Respondent No.1 to 13. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Title Partition Suit No.121 of 1976 was decreed in favour of their mother and preliminary decree was drawn on 14.04.1982. Defendants preferred First Appeal No.98 of 1982 which was dismissed as no step was taken for the substitution of the decree holder/respondent who died during the pendency of the first appeal. 3. Vide Order dated 29.03.2004, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit as abated and rejected the petition dated 03.01.2002 for substitution of the plaintiff at the stage of final decree proceeding. The Suit was declared, as abated for the reason that after the dismissal of the first appeal on 12.11.1999 till 03.01.2002, no step for substitution was taken by the petitioners. 4. Plaintiff (s)/ petitioner(s) moved this Court against the said order in WP[C] No.3525 of 2004 which was dismissed for non-compliance of the order for substitution of respondents on 11.02.2009. 5. So far the delay of about 12 years 8 months in preferring the restoration application is concerned, it is submitted that the original plaintiff had died during the pendency of the first appeal and the other family members were not aware of the pendency of the litigation regarding it, and they were also not aware of the intricacies of the legal proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the Opp. Parties while opposing the prayer has submitted that there is an inordinate delay of more than 12 years in filing the substitution petition. Further the substitution petition will not lie as even the Writ Petition was filed and at that time, the plaintiff (Aso Devi) had already died. Had the death occurred during the pendency of the Appeal, only then the question of substitution arises? Further, setting aside of abatement has also not been prayed for. A valuable right has accrued due to delay in preferring the substitution petition. 7. Had the death occurred during the pendency of the Appeal, only then the question of substitution arises? Further, setting aside of abatement has also not been prayed for. A valuable right has accrued due to delay in preferring the substitution petition. 7. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and on perusal on record of the case, it cannot be denied that there is an inordinate delay in filing the instant restoration application. Despite this, there are two factors which imply this Court to restore the original writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and to hear the said case on merit. 8. Firstly, petitioners in WPC No.3525 of 2004, are the legal representatives of the original decree holder, and the judgment and preliminary decree in partition suit in her favour had attained finality. 9. Partition is a redistribution or adjustment of pre-existing rights, among co-owners of the co-parcenors resulting in a division of lands or other properties jointly held by them into different plots or portions and delivery thereof to the respective allottees. The decision on these two issues is exercise of judicial function and results in first stage decision termed as decree under Order XX rule 18 (1) and termed as a preliminary decree under Order XX rule 18 (2) of the C.P.C. The consequential division by meets and bound is considered to be ministerial of administrative act requiring the physical inspection, measurements, calculations and considering various permutations/combinations/alternatives of division is referred to the Collector under Order XX rule 18 (1) and subject matter of the preliminary decree under Order XX rule 18 (2) of the CPC. 10. There is no period prescribed for limitation to prepare final decree. Therefore initiation of final decree proceedings does not depend upon an application for final decree for initiation (unless the local amendments require the same). Code does not contemplate filing an application for final decree. Therefore, when a preliminary decree is passed in a partition suit, the proceedings should be continued by fixing dates for further proceedings till a final decree is passed. It is the duty and function of the court. Performance of such function does not require a reminder or nudge from the litigant. The mindset should be to expedite the process of dispute resolution. (See Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad v. Sita Saran Bubna & Ors. It is the duty and function of the court. Performance of such function does not require a reminder or nudge from the litigant. The mindset should be to expedite the process of dispute resolution. (See Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad v. Sita Saran Bubna & Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 689 ; Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Anr. vs. Kattukand, Edmit Valsan & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 737) 11. Secondly, when there is no period of limitation for drawing final decree, then dismissal of the substitution petition cannot be held to be sustainable. In this view of matter the very dismissal of the suit at the stage of final decree proceeding does not appear to be justified. 12. Coming to the restoration application, as the original decree holder had died, and as pleaded, this occasioned in delay in preferring the restoration application, as they were not fully posted about the pendency of the writ petition before this court, and ramification of not filing substitution petition within time. On somewhat similar fact situation, restoration application was allowed in Satpal Singh v. Chunni Lal (D) through LRs., (2009) 6 SCC 607 . 13. Under the circumstance, the prayer made in the instant I.A. is allowed. 14. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly allowed 15. Consequently, WPC No.3525 of 2004 is restored to its original file. Petitioners are directed to comply with the earlier order dated 28.01.2009 for fresh service of notice to Respondent No.1 to 13, by both process for which requisite etc. to be filed within two weeks, and the case to be listed after six weeks. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.