IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3607 of 2004 Date of decision: 27.10.2010. Ghulla Singh and others ...Appellants vs Harinder Singh and another. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. Present: Mr.Parveen Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Binderjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents for separate possession by way of partition of the suit property was decreed. It is appropriate to refer to the order dated 21.10.2009 passed by this Court, which reads as follows:- “ The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the property in dispute is a dwelling house where the appellants are staying. The respondents are strangers who have purchased the share from the third co-sharer. In the circumstances, it is his prayer that partition may not be ordered but the respondents may be suitably compensated. I proposed to learned counsel that being the larger sharer holders I would give the appellants a right to fix the price of the property and choice would be given to the respondents to either buy the share of the appellants at that price or sell to the appellants their share at that price. Learned counsel for the appellants prays for a short adjournment so as to ascertain from the appellants as to what is the value on which they put to this house. Adjourned to 19.11.2009. Learned counsel for the appellants is further directed to intimate the price so fixed by the appellants to learned counsel RSA No.3607 of 2004 (2) for the respondents by 10.11.2009 so that he may seek appropriate instructions from his clients as to whether they want to sell or buy from the appellants. October 21, 2009 (Sd/- AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE”. Since the date of the aforesaid order, appellants are seeking adjournments, and have failed to comply with the aforesaid order. Thus, it seems that the appellants are not interested to honour their offer made vide order dated 21.10.2009. Since no other argument was raised on merits possibly no substantial question of law can arise. No merits. Dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge October 27, 2010 rk