The appellants filed their objections on 4.11.1986 after about three years of the direction given by the High Court.
It was also pointed out that said preliminary decree had been challenged on the same ground and the matter came up to the High Court and the High Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the preparation of the final decree.
The Trial Court passed order on 14.4.1978 saying that as the suit lands which were sought to be partitioned had vested in the Gram Panchayat of the village, they companyld number be partitioned in that view of the matter numberfurther steps for preparation of the final decree was required to be taken.
On second appeal SAO No.
The respondents filed an appeal which was dismissed holding that in view of Section 13 B of the Act the suit was number maintainable before the Civil Court.
The High Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and restored that of the Trial Court.
Thereafter, the respondents filed second appeal SAO No.
A petition under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed.
They file the objection as late as on 4.11.1986 about 12 years after the passing of the preliminary decree.
The preliminary decree for partition was passed on 1.6.1974.
The Additional District Judge allowed the said appeal and directed fresh trial in accordance with law.
The second appeal filed on behalf of the respondents as already stated above was allowed by High Court and the order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored which is under challenge in the present appeal.
During the preparation of the final decree certain objections were filed, one of them being that the land having vested in the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulations Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act numberpreliminary decree companyld have been passed for partition of the same.
7 of 1989 aforesaid before the High Court making a grievance that the Additional District Judge companyld number have gone into the question as to whether the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code had been companyplied with or number, as a preliminary decree had already been passed.
The respondents filed the suit in question for partition of the land specified in the plaint on 10.4.1974.
There is numberdispute that they never appeared or filed any objection at any stage earlier.
Their objection was rejected on 5.2.1987 and the final decree was signed by the Trial Court on 5.2.1987 itself.
48 of 1979 being filed on behalf of the respondents before the High Court, the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the Court of Appeal were set aside on 10.11.1983 and direction was given by the High Court to the Trial Court to proceed with the case from the stage, prior to passing of judgment and decree dated 14.4.1978 meaning thereby that further steps for preparation of the final decree be taken.
P. SINGH.
J This appeal has been filed against the order of the High Court by which the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiffs respondents hereinafter referred to as the respondents was allowed.
