IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.425 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: February 3 , 2010. Balbir Singh ...Appellant(s) v. Umesh Singh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Gunjan Rishi, Advocate, for Shri Karan Singh, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby a final decree of partition in favour of the plaintiff-respondents has been passed on the basis of the mode of partition submitted by the local commissioner appointed by the Court in this regard. Admittedly, a preliminary decree for partition of the suit property between the parties was drawn vide order dated 16.2.1999. On an application filed by the plaintiff-respondents for passing the final decree, a local commissioner was appointed to suggest the mode of partition. In pursuance thereto, the local commissioner submitted the mode of partition to which objections were filed by the appellant. However, on 15.12.2007 on the statement of the counsel for the parties, objections were withdrawn and the final decree was passed accepting the mode of partition, as suggested by the local commissioner. RSA No.425 of 2010 -2- The only grievance raised before this court by the appellant is that the counsel for the appellant was not competent to give concession on behalf of the appellant and to accept the mode of partition as suggested by the local commissioner and approved by the court. In view of the ratio of law laid down in Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) Th. LR. Smt. Sadhna Rai Appellant versus Rajinder Singh & Ors. Respondents, 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 479, no infirmity can be found in the judgment and decrees of the lower appellate court. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 3, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge