IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.142 of 2006 Date of decision : June 30, 2010 Hari Singh …Petitioner. Versus Nirmala …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner, in this case, is aggrieved by the order dated 20th January, 2006, Annexure P-1, of the trial Court, whereby his application, under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amending the final decree, so as to bring it in line with the preliminary decree, as regards the value of some old structure, allegedly demolished by the JD-respondent, has been dismissed. 2. A suit for partition of joint property was filed by the petitioner against respondent Nirmala Devi, which was decreed. While passing the preliminary decree, trial Court observed that respondent-JD had constructed a new house at the site of an old house and that while carrying out the partition on the spot, the site under new house may be Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… allotted to the respondent-JD, but the value of the old structure, which stood at the site, which was assessed at Rs.15,000/-, shall be taken into account, at the time of passing the final decree for partition. 3. A Local Commissioner was appointed, for suggesting partition by metes and bounds, in terms of the preliminary decree. He submitted a report, on the basis of which final decree was passed. 4. According to the petitioner, neither in the report of the Local Commissioner nor in the final decree any reference was made to the amount of Rs.15,000/-, assessed as value of the old structure standing at the site, where the JD had constructed a new structure. He, therefore, filed an application for correction of the final decree, alleging that omission of reference to the amount of Rs.15,000/- in the report of the Local Commissioner as also the final decree was due to accidental slip. Prayer was opposed by the respondent-JD. He pleaded that the share of the petitioner-DH in the value of the old structure had been adjusted in the property allotted to him on the spot and some joint structure, in which the JD had 1/3rd Share, had been given to the petitioner-JD, at the time of partition, on the spot. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. …3… 6. Admittedly, there is no reference in the report of the Local Commissioner that the value of the house, referred to in the preliminary decree, had been adjusted against another old house, allegedly allotted to the DH, nor is there any reference of such adjustment in the final decree. In such circumstances, it was expected of the trial Court to have allowed the parties to lead evidence and to give an authoritative verdict on the issue. Trial Court has not adopted this procedure. Not only this, the trial Court has not even made a mention of the aforesaid plea of the JD in its order and in fact has dismissed the application, without giving any sound reason. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order, so far as it dismisses the application for correction of final decree, is set aside and the trial Court is directed to decide the said application afresh, in accordance with the observations made hereinabove and, of course, also in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 19th July, 2010. June 30, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J