C.R.No.6864 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.6864 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on 15.11.2010. Smt.Sunita Devi and another --Petitioners vs. Smt.Prem Kaur and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Kulvir Narwal,Advocate,for the petitioners Mr.Rakesh Nehra,Advocate,for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J,(Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.9.2010 passed by Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division),Jhajjar by which objection filed against the report of Local Commissioner has been dismissed. In brief, the case of the plaintiffs is that they had filed a suit for possession by way of partition in which a preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court on 20.10.2005 holding them to be the owners of 3/7th share in the property in question and entitlement to get C.R.No.6864 of 2010 (O&M) 2 her share separated by way of partition. The defendants/petitioners challenged the preliminary decree by way of appeal which was dismissed on 17.10.2007. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed execution application in which Local Commissioner was appointed, who suggested mode of partition and submitted his report which was objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioners in which the impugned order has been passed. In this revision petition, notice of motion was issued on 15.10.2010. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioners has filed two applications bearing CM Nos. 29111 and 29112-CII of 2010 for placing on record some documents. The said applications are allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is a glaring error in the procedure as the decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, which is stated to have become final between the parties, is not in consonance with Order 20 Rule 18 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short,'CPC) as the decree does not reflect separate shares of the various parties. Mode of partition was suggested in para No.10 of its judgment, but inadvertently it could not be reflected in the decree which is sought to be executed. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and liberty may be granted to the defendants/respondents to file an application before the First Appellate Court for obtaining a decree in accordance with the judgment on the basis of which they would file an execution application. In view of the above, the present revision petition is C.R.No.6864 of 2010 (O&M) 3 allowed. The impugned order is set aside and liberty is granted to the respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 15.11.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge