The main legal point established is the requirement for a trial court to provide a detailed reasoned order when deciding objections to a report, as well as the appellate court's authority to give suitable directions to the trial court for modification of the mode of partition without disturbing the final decree.

Darshan Singh, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 21.05.2014 passed by learned District Judge, Gurgaon, vide which the trial court has been directed to decide the objections to the report of the Local Commission after hearing both the parties by passing a detailed reasoned order.

2. Decree-holder/respondent Ram Lal (now deceased) filed the suit for possession by way of partition on the ground that he is owner in possession to the extent of 1/4th share in the plot bearing Khewat No.935, Khatoni No.1188, Rectangle/Khasra No.312(2-7) situated within the abadi of village Jharsa. The petitioner-defendant contested the suit, however, the learned trial court passed the preliminary decree for partition vide judgment and decree dated 17.08.2006 declaring the DH-respondent to be owner of the suit property to the extent of 1/4th share. The appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon on 31.01.2007. Thereafter, the DH-respondent moved an application for passing the final decree of partition. The appellant-respondent did not appear in response to the notice issued on that application and was proceeded against ex parte. On the application of the DH-plaintiff the trial court appointed Local Commission to submit his report about the mode of partition. The Local Commission submitted his report dated 20.01.2012. The DH-respondent filed the objections to the said report of the Local Commission. The learned trial court concluded that objection was without any basis. He passed the final decree accepting the report of the Local Commission. Aggrieved with the passing of the order dated 21.03.2012 passing the final decree, the appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Gurgaon. The learned District Judge, Gurgaon vide impugned judgment dated 21.05.2014 without disturbing the preliminary decree directed the trial court to decide the objection after hearing both the parties and by passing a detailed reasoned order. Hence, this revision petition.

3. I have heard Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 8 and gone through the paper-book carefully.

4. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned District Judge has based his order on the nonexistent provision of law i.e. Order 20 Rule 18(9) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called the 'CPC') Thus, he contended that very basis of the order passed by the learned District Judge is illegal. He further contended that there was nothing wrong in the report of the Local Commission. He has suggested the proper mode of partition keeping in view the interest of all the parties. The order passed by learned trial court rejecting the objections does not suffer from any illegality. Thus, he contended that the impugned judgment/order dated 21.05.2014 passed by the learned District Judge is unsustainable in the eye of law.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the order passed by learned trial court was non-speaking. The learned trial court has not given any reason in the order for dismissing the objection petition. Thus, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned District Judge.

6. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.

7. Though the provision quoted by the learned District Judge in the impugned judgment i.e. Order 20 Rule 18(9) does not figure in the CPC but at the same time I do not find any substance in the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that said provision was the basis for passing the order by the learned District Judge. This provision has only been referred by the learned District Judge to show that the appellate court can give suitable directions to the trial court for modification of the mode of partition without disturbing the final decree. The