IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2749 of 2001 Date of Decision : July 13, 2009 Ram Pal and others ...Appellants Versus Chand Ram and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. K.S.Malik, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,3 to 7 and 10. Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 8 and 11. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for possession by way of partition filed by Chand Ram- respondent No.1 was decreed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Gohana, on May 13, 1998 in view of the written statement filed by the defendants therein, who are respondents No.2 to 7 in the present appeal, wherein they admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Consequently, a preliminary decree for possession by way of partition was passed regarding the suit land on the principle of Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. Pursuant to reports Ex.P1, P2 and P3 of the Local Commissioner, the plaintiff filed an application before the trial Court for passing the final R.S.A. No. 2749 of 2001 -2- decree. In view of the reports of the Local Commissioner and the fact that no objections were filed by any of the parties to the suit, the trial Court, vide judgment dated July 26, 2000, passed the final decree and made the reports of the Local Commissioner as its part. The aforementioned judgment and final decree was challenged by the appellants and respondent Nos. 8 to 11 by filing an appeal and by pleading therein that under Order I Rule 8(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested, either by personal service or where by reason of the number of persons or any other cause such service was reasonably not practicable, by public advertisement at the plaintiff's expense. However, the trial Court, vide order dated 28.11.1997 passed at the time of presentation of the suit, ordered for service of the defendants, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 to 7 for themselves and on behalf of other proprietors of Panna Thuthan under Order I Rule 8 of the Code since the proprietors of the said Panna were numerous and it was not possible to effect service upon them. The appeal was, however, dismissed by first appellate Court on January 23, 2001. Aggrieved of the same, they filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned trial Court erred in not issuing notices to each and every proprietor of the village, or, atleast in not issuing public advertisement before R.S.A. No. 2749 of 2001 -3- proceeding with the suit. It is also submitted that as the share of each proprietor was put according to the land revenue paid by him, therefore, the Local Commissioner was required to exclude passages, water tanks/ponds and areas meant for use of cattle and for common purposes besides reserving some land for the extension of the abadi. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that no appeal was filed against the preliminary decree, and, therefore, the appellants had no locus to challenge the same as also the final decree. Under Section 97 of the Code, no objections can be raised in any appeal which is filed to challenge the final decree especially when no appeal is filed by the defendants against the preliminary decree. As regards service of all the proprietors, though notice was issued to the six defendants only yet Munadi (public proclamation) was made in the village so as to invite objections from the proprietors. Despite the same, no one except the defendants came forward. After putting in appearance, even the defendants admitted the claim of the plaintiff. In view of the fact that the learned trial Court, while passing preliminary decree, ordered for partition of the suit land on the principle of Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat, the appellants cannot be heard R.S.A. No. 2749 of 2001 -4- saying that the proprietors would be dispossessed from their pucca houses or Ghers or that no clear directions were issued to the Local Commissioner in undertaking the necessary exercise. The conclusions arrived at by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 13, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1