Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: - Both the aforementioned revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Code’) are against order dated 24.5.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.18 of 2.5.2006 allowing appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff through her legal representatives against order dated 4.4.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandigarh, vide which applications filed under Order 40 Rule 1 and under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code by respondent-plaintiff were disposed of.

2. Briefly stated, defendant no.3-Bhupinder Singh was full owner of shop-cum-office No.40, Sector 7C, Chandigarh, i.e., the premises in dispute. He had sold specific shares of that property to different persons at different times. There is no dispute that at present, the present petitioners alongwith respondent-plaintiff and other respondents-defendants are coowners in the entire property in the ratio mentioned below:-

(i) Smt. Rajinder Kaur -plaintiff (since deceased)

and now represented by her legal representatives. 25%

(ii) Gurbhajan Kaur, respondent-defendant no.1 12.5%

(iii) Prabhsharan Singh Sandhu, respondent-defendant no.2 12.5%

(iv) Bhupinder Singh, defendant no.3 (since sold

to present petitioner-S.C. Bhalla, after passing of

ad interim order by learned trial Court and during

pendency of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against

the said order before learned Additional District

Judge, Chandigarh). 1%

(v) Ajay Aggarwal, defendant no. 4 17%

(vi) Neelam Aggarwal, defendant no. 5 17%

(vii) Amarnath Singla, respondent-defendant no. 6 3.75%

(viii) Laxmi Devi, respondent-defendant no. 7 3.75%

(ix) Meena Singla, respondent-defendant no. 8 3.75%

(x) Seema Rani, respondent-defendant no. 9 3.75%

3. Respondent-defendant no.10 was a tenant in the half portion on the ground floor, adjacent to SCO No.41, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh, which was leased out to him on monthly rent of Rs.1,900/- by defendant no.3, who filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandigarh, against him, which was dismissed by learned trial Court and, however, appeal filed by him was accepted and respondent-defendant No.10 was ordered to be ejected. Tenant filed regular second appeal before this Court, which was dismissed and he was directed to vacate the premises in dispute within a year from the date of order and was also directed to pay future charges for use and occupation @ Rs.5,000/- per month. Defendants no.6 to 8 remained in possession of the other portion of premises in dispute sometimes by way of self occupancy and sometimes through tenants inducted by them. Defendants no.4 and 5, who are coowners to the extent of 34% share have been continuing in possession of first floor and second floor alongwith small portion underneath the staircase of the premises in dispute and now they have rented out the same to respondents-defendants no.12 to 14. Further case of respondent-plaintiff is that since defendant no.3 has taken possession of premises in dispute from respondent-defendant no.10, pursuant to ejectment order passed by this Court, hence, he is occupying the area much more than his share. Further plea has been taken that respondent-plaintiff and respondents-defendants no.1 and 2, who jointly owned 50% share in the entire property are entitled to the rent paid to respondents-defendants no.3 to 9 payable by defendants no.10 to 14 and, however, they are not getting any fruit of their share of the property in dispute.

4. The present suit filed by respondent-plaintiff is for a decree for partition of the premises in dispute by metes and bounds and if the partition is barred by any law and otherwise is not possible, then the entire premises be auctioned amongst the co-owners/share holders and if auction amongst the co-owners and share holder