R.L. Khurana, J.—The above noted two Second Appeals arising out of the judgment and decree dated 11.11.1997 of the learned District Judge, Nahan, are being disposed of by this single judgment.

2. The appellants in both the appeals were the defendants while respondents 1 to 3 were the plaintiffs before the learned trial court. They are being referred to accordingly hereinafter,

3. In a suit for partition of joint property, being civil suit No. 5/1 of 1974, filed by one Kanshi Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiffs, a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 19.9. 1986. The shares of the parties were determined as under:—

1. Plaintiff — l/3rd share.

2. Defendants No. 1 and

2. — l/3rd share.

3. Smt. Jawala Devi (deceased defendant No. 3). l/3rd share.

4. Defendant No. 1 Om Parkash assailed the preliminary decree dated 19.9.1986 by way of an appeal before the learned District Judge, Nahan. Such appeal was dismissed on 19.7,1987. Thereafter, the plaintiffs applied for passing a final decree on the basis of the preliminary decree. During the pendency of the application for passing the final decree, various local commissioners were appointed to partition the property by metes and bounds in terms of the preliminary decree. Spot was inspected also by various Presiding Officers of the trial Court and efforts were made to bring about some amicable settlement between the parties, however, the matter could not be settled Ultimately, on 27.3.1997 on the agreement between the parties, Shri N.S. Chauhan, Advocate, was appointed as a Local Commissioner to effect the partition of the joint property. The said Local Commissioner, after effecting the partition submitted his report dated 7.4.1997 to the trial court. Defendant No. 1 Om Parkash preferred objections to such report. ,

5. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties and having considered the material on the record, dismissed the objections and passed a final decree for partition on the basis of the report dated 7.4.1977 of the Local Commissioner, vide order dated 11.7.1997.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants No. 1 and 2, Sarvshri Om Parkash and Ram Sarup approached the learned District Judge by way of two separate appeals, being Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 17-CMA/ 14 of 1997 and 18 CMA/14 of 1997. Both these appeals were dismissed by the learned District Judge vide a common judgment and decree dated 11.11.1997. Only a clerical error in the calculation of amount payable to the plaintiffs was corrected as indicated in para 20 of the judgment of the learned District Judge.

7. The defendants No. 1 and 2 are now before this Court by way of the present two regular Second Appeals.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.

9. As stated above, Shri N.S. Chauhan, Advocate, was appointed as a Local Commissioner, by the learned trial court vide order dated 27.3.1997. The said order reads:— "Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed to get Shri N.S. Chauhan, a local advocate, appointed as local commissioner. Hence, the said advocate, who has come present in court, is hereby appointed a local commissioner to effect partition of the suit property strictly in accordance with the preliminary decree. While effecting partition, the local commissioner shall, however, bear in mind the order dated 3.4.1995 passed by my learned predecessor-in-office. He may peruse the said order before proceeding to the spot. The parties in presence are directed to be present at Trilokpur where part of the suit property is situate, on March 30, 1997 around 11 a.m. when local commissioner proposes to visit there. Fee of the local commissioner is assessed at Rs. 2,000/ - to be equally borne by the parties in presence. The fee shall be paid at the spot. The report of the local commissioner be called for 31.3.1997.”

10. Under Order 26, Code of Civil Procedure, Local Commissioners are appointed for different purposes and the procedure prescribe