ORDER : 1. The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.152 of 1983 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, for partition of the property, claimed to be joint family property. This suit was filed against two defendants. The 1 st defendant was set ex parte, even before the preliminary decree had been passed. Subsequently, a preliminary decree was passed on 22.06.1984. It may also be noted that the plaintiff, at the time of filing of the suit was a minor and was represented by his mother as next best friend. 2. The 1 st defendant had passed away and the defendants 3 & 4 came on record as the LRs of the deceased 1 st defendant. The defendants 1 to 4 filed I.A.No.758 of 2024 in OS.No.152 of 1983 for appointment of an advocate commissioner for division of the suit schedule property into three equal shares by metes and bounds and to submit a report regarding the said division and for passing of the final decree in pursuance of the preliminary decree. 3. This application was resisted, by the petitioner herein, on various grounds. About 16 grounds were raised by the petitioner. The Trial Judge, by an Order dated 02.04.2025, allowed the application appointing a learned advocate commissioner to take up the task of division of the schedule property into three equal shares etc. The Trial Judge recorded that the counter filed by the petitioner herein did not have any tenable objections. 4. Aggrieved by the said Order, dated 02.04.2025, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. Sri Phani Teja Cheruvu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would reiterate the grounds raised in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Trial Court could not have passed the impugned order inasmuch as the following grounds had not been answered by the Trial Court:- a) The preliminary decree, dated 22.06.1984, had abated as the 1 st defendant had passed away and appropriate steps were not taken to bring on record the LRs of the 1 st defendant. b) Order 32 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [for short “the CPC”] requires leave to be taken for proceeding in a case against a minor who has attained a majority. b) Order 32 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [for short “the CPC”] requires leave to be taken for proceeding in a case against a minor who has attained a majority. c) The 2 nd defendant, who was the 2 nd petitioner in the application, had already filed O.S.No.273 of 2022 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, against the petitioner herein for an injunction, on the ground that the 2 nd defendant is in possession of the property. d) That a Trial should have been conducted in the matter before an advocate commissioner was appointed, in view of the various contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the changed circumstances after the passing of the preliminary decree. 6. Sri Phani Teja Cheruvu, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Section 141 of the CPC which deals with miscellaneous proceedings provides for such a Trial and relies upon the Judgment of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Mothukuri Ranga Rao & Anr. Vs. Royyala Laxminarayana & Ors . (2007) 12 AP CK 0051. 7. Sri J.V. Phaniduth, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that none of these contentions are maintainable. He would contend that once a preliminary decree has been passed the question of the suit abating even upon the demise of the parties would not arise. He relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Kishan Lal & Ors. Vs. Nathi Lal , AIR 1971 Delhi 308 as well as the Judgment of the Privy Council, in the case of Lachmi Narain Makwary & Ors. Vs. Balmakund Marwary & Anr. AIR 1924 PC 198 . 8. Sri J.V. Phaniduth, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that Order 32 of Rule 12 of the CPC requires the plaintiff minor to either proceed with the case or abandon the case and there is no restriction, for the other parties to the suit, to proceed with their case. He would submit that the minor plaintiff, who had turned major, cannot hold other parties to ransom on the ground that the minor has to take a decision. He would also submit that the pendency of OS.No.273 of 2022 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, does not in any manner affect the proceeding and the same would not be a bar. 9. He would also submit that the pendency of OS.No.273 of 2022 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, does not in any manner affect the proceeding and the same would not be a bar. 9. The first contention was that the demise of the 1 st defendant had resulted in an abatement of a suit. The question of whether there would be such abatement on the demise of a party to a suit, where a preliminary decree had already been passed, came to be considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Kishan Lal & Ors. Vs. Nathi Lal. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi following the Judgment of the Hon’ble Privy Council, in the case of Lachmi Narain Makwary & Ors. Vs. Balmakund Marwary & Anr. had held that once a preliminary decree has been issued, the rights of the parties are crystallized by the said preliminary decree and the question of abatement would not arise. 10. In the Judgment of the Hon’ble Privy Council, in the case of Lachmi Narain Makwary & Ors. Vs. Balmakund Marwary & Anr. the Hon’ble Privy Council was considering a case where the suit was sought to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff, after the passing of the preliminary decree, had not been prosecuting the case. The Hon’ble Privy Council had held as follows:- “Their Lordships do not think it necessary to determine whether the word "hearing" should or should not have this particular limitation; because they think that the decision can be supported on another ground. After a decree has once been made in a suit, the suit cannot be dismissed unless the decree is reversed on appeal. The parties have, on the making of the decree, acquired rights or incurred liabilities which are fixed, unless or until the decree is varied or set aside. After a decree any party can (as already stated) apply to have it enforced.” 11. This principle would be applicable even in a case where one of the parties, to the suit, passes away. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, it must be held that there would be no abatement in the event of the death of a party to a suit for partition, once a preliminary decree has been passed. 13. This principle would be applicable even in a case where one of the parties, to the suit, passes away. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, it must be held that there would be no abatement in the event of the death of a party to a suit for partition, once a preliminary decree has been passed. 13. Order 32 Rule 12 of the CPC clearly provides an opportunity to a minor plaintiff, who was attained majority, to decide whether he would be interested in pursuing the suit, filed in his name, or he would prefer to abandon the suit. This option can be expressed by the minor plaintiff, by making an application to the Court. Upon such an application being made, the Court can decide the issue ex parte. However, after notice to the next best friend who had initiated the suit on behalf of the minor. The language in this provision does not lend itself to a situation where leave is to be obtained by the other parties to the suit to pursue the suit against the minor plaintiff. 14. The filing of O.S.No.273 of 2022, by the 2 nd defendant, seeking an injunction against the petitioner does not in any manner place a bar on the final decree proceeding in the present suit. 15. Sri Phani Teja Cheruvu, the learned counsel for the petitioner had also contended that 40 years have elapsed since the passing of the preliminary decree and a Trial is needed for the purposes of ascertaining the facts and changes in the situation on the ground, after the passing of the preliminary decree. He would contend that without such a Trial appointment of an advocate commissioner would be redundant. 16. The normal course adopted, in final decree proceedings, is for the Court to appoint an advocate commissioner, who would verify the situation on the ground, consult the parties to the suit and for partition of the properties, by metes and bounds and for allotment of these divided properties. The advocate commissioner would then file a report with the recommendations of the advocate commissioner. The report, filed by the advocate commissioner, would be placed before the Court with liberty being given, to all the parties, to accept or to raise objections to the proposals made by the learned advocate commissioner, in the said report. The advocate commissioner would then file a report with the recommendations of the advocate commissioner. The report, filed by the advocate commissioner, would be placed before the Court with liberty being given, to all the parties, to accept or to raise objections to the proposals made by the learned advocate commissioner, in the said report. It would be open to the parties to raise all objections, including a request to reject the entire report filed by the advocate commissioner. 17. In those circumstances, the appointment of an advocate commissioner, to verify these facts and to place a report before the Trial Court, does not require any Trial to be conducted, before the appointment of such an advocate commissioner. This is because the report of the advocate commissioner would not be binding on any of the parties unless they chose to accept the said report, in the Court. The appointment of an advocate commissioner, especially since more than 40 years have elapsed, is a more practical method of ascertaining the facts and for the Court to get an understanding of the situation on the ground. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any reason to intervene or interfere with the Order of the Trial Court, dated 02.04.2025, in I.A.No.758 of 2024 in OS.No.152 of 1983 and accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.