Punjab-Haryana High CourtR.C. Sood And Co. (P) Ltd. vs R. Kant And Co. And Ors. on 14 March, 2002Equivalent citations: AIR2002P&H304, AIR 2002 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 304, (2002) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 537, (2002) 49 ARBILR 320, (2002) 3 PUN LR 827, (2002) 3 ICC 134, (2003) 1 ICC 706, (2002) 2 RECCIVR 580Author:S.S. NijjarBench:S.S. NijjarJUDGMENT
 

 S.S. Nijjar, J.1. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length and perused the record of the case.2. It is submitted by Mr. Punchhi that, admittedly, the controversy about the ownership of 25% of the land is still pending final adjudication in R.S.A. No.1936 of 1987. The learned counsel is aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned Lower Appellate Court directing that the Local Commissioner who is to be appointed by the learned trial Court, shall suggest the mode of partition. Learned counsel further makes a grievance of the direction given by the learned Lower Appellate Court that the possession of the parties shall not be disturbed unless, it is essential for effecting the partition of the land or unless one is found to be in excess of his share. According to the learned counsel, this direction will operate in favour of defendants Nos.1 and 2, who are, admittedly, in possession of 430 acres of land. It is also not disputed that the plaintiffs have purchased 230 acres of land. However, they are not in possession of any part of the land which has been purchased. According to the learned counsel the partition has to be done by metes and bonds to ensure equitable distribution among co-owners.3. I am of the considered opinion that the aforesaid directions given by the learned Lower Appellate Court are neither unreasonable nor perverse. It has to be noticed that it was the appellant itself who filed a suit for partition. In fact, it is the suit of the appellant which has been decreed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. The learned trial Court had, in fact, dismissed the suit holding that the suit land belonged entirely to the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. This finding was not acceptable to the appellants. They have now succeeded in the appeal and partition has been ordered. Therefore, in my opinion the appellants cannot be permitted to make any grievance of the directions which have been given by the learned Lower Appellant Court-. I find that the directions given are perfectly within the jurisdiction of the learned Lower Appellate Court.4. No substantial question of law has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.5. At this stage, Mr. Patwalia states that since caveat has been filed, his submission
to the effect that the ownership of 230 acres of land purchased by the appellants is disputed by them, may be noticed. It is made clear that while disposing of the regular second appeal no opinion on the merits of the submissions made by the counsel has been
expressed with regard to the ownership of the land by the various parties. Otherwise,
since no interim relief has been granted by this Court, it is not necessary to notice any
of the submissions made by Mr. Patwalia.