IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO. 942 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION. January 16, 2007. Smt. Mali and others ......Petitioners Versus Parbhati and others ......Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL PRESENT Mr. G. S. Gandhi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J. P. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. VINEY MITTAL , J( Oral ) The legal representative of the plaintiff are in appeal. They have lost concurrently before the two courts below. It is apparent from the findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below that the partition proceedings had been finalised wherein an order dated March 6, 1995 had been passed. There is nothing on record to suggest that the aforesaid partition proceeding suffered from any infirmity. Even otherwise, jurisdiction of the Civil Court to interfere in the order of partition is barred. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent informs the Court that after the partition proceedings, the parties are in their respective possession as per the partition order. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Dismissed. January 16, 2007 ( VINEY MITTAL ) mamta JUDGE