-1- Civil Revision No.1821 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 15, 2011. Civil Revision No.1821 of 2011 (O&M). Smt. Saroj Rani ... Petitioner. VERSUS Smt.Raj Dulari and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The defendant-respondent is aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court whereby her prayer for getting assessment of value of the shop in question by appointing a technical person as Local Commissioner has been declined. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, I do not see any reason warranting -2- Civil Revision No.1821 of 2011 (O&M). interference in the impugned order passed by the trial Judge. Plaintiff-respondent Smt.Raj Dulari and defendant-petitioner Smt. Saroj Rani are the daughters-in-law of Durga Dass. The suit was filed by plaintiff Smt.Raj Kumari for separate possession after partition of the shop in question. After preliminary decree had been passed, a Local Commissioner was appointed. The Local Commissioner submitted his report that the shop in question could be partitioned and two independent shops could be carved out. The plaintiff-respondent had made a statement that she was ready to accept any side of the two shops to be carved out after partition. As such, when the shop in dispute was not to be sold, there was no question of appointing any Local Commissioner in assessing the value thereof. The executing Court was justified in declining the prayer of the defendant-petitioner in this regard. Dismissed. ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 15, 2011. JUDGE ak