RSA No. 2982 of 2004 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2982 of 2004 Date of decision: December 16,2008 Om Parkash and others ..Appellants. Versus Darshan Kumar and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for the appellants. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is defendants second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby final decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents on the basis of preliminary decree dated 15.9.1982 declaring specific shares of the parties in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. In brief the facts of the case of the plaintiff is that vide judgment dated 15.9.1982 a preliminary decree was passed by declaring specific shares of the parties and on 16.8.1985 the proceedings were initiated for obtaining final decree. Against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.82 an appeal was filed by the judgment-debtor Om Parkash and Hon’ble High Court stayed the proceedings and file remained consigned. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal and proceedings were revived vide order dated 20.3.1999. Thereafter, Local Commissioners were appointed vide order dated 20.3.1999 who submitted their reports by suggesting the partition of the land as ordered in the preliminary decree in question and a prayer was made for passing the final decree as per the report of the Local Commissioners. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 (now appellants) filed objections stating therein that the final decree cannot be passed on the basis of preliminary decree and prayed for dismissal of the petition whereby passing of final decree was sought. The trial Court after hearing RSA No. 2982 of 2004 2 the counsel for the parties dismissed the objection petition filed by the appellants and passed a final decree. Feeling aggrieved from the final judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellants filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.5.2003. Still not satisfied, the appellants have filed the instant appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the judgment dated 15.9.1982, whereby a preliminary decree was passed declaring specific shares of the parties has become final between the parties. The Local Commissioners were appointed by the Court who submitted their reports suggesting the partition of the land as ordered in the preliminary decree in question. The courts below have passed a final decree as per the report of the Local Commissioner. It is well settled that in a partition suit, drawing up of final decree on the basis of a preliminary decree is continuation of proceedings. When a preliminary decree of partition is passed, court not only declares rights of the parties but is duty bound to pass a final decree. While passing a final decree, the court will not go behind preliminary decree. It is also well settled that an application for final decree in a suit for partition is not governed by the provisions of Limitation Act. Thus, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of the courts below. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed. December 16, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE