ASRFI Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 21.05.2014 passed by learned District Judge, Gurgaon, vide which the trial court has been directed to decide the objections to the report of the Local Commission after hearing both the parties by passing a detailed reasoned order.

(2.) Decree-Holder/Respondent Ram Lal (now deceased) filed the suit for possession by way of partition on the ground that he is owner in possession to the extent of 1/4th share in the plot bearing Khewat No.935, Khatoni No.1188, Rectangle/Khasra No.312(2-7) situated within the abadi of village Jharsa. The petitioner-defendant contested the suit, however, the learned trial court passed the preliminary decree for partition vide judgment and decree dated 17.08.2006 declaring the DHrespondent to be owner of the suit property to the extent of 1/4th share. The appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon on 31.01.2007. Thereafter, the DH-respondent moved an application for passing the final decree of partition. The appellant-respondent did not appear in response to the notice issued on that application and was proceeded against ex parte. On the application of the DH-plaintiff the trial court appointed Local Commission to submit his report about the mode of partition. The Local Commission submitted his report dated 20.01.2012. The DHrespondent filed the objections to the said report of the Local Commission. The learned trial court concluded that objection was without any basis. He passed the final decree accepting the report of the Local Commission. Aggrieved with the passing of the order dated 21.03.2012 passing the final decree, the appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Gurgaon. The learned District Judge, Gurgaon vide impugned judgment dated 21.05.2014 without disturbing the preliminary decree directed the trial court to decide the objection after hearing both the parties and by passing a detailed reasoned order. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 8 and gone through the paper-book carefully.