Under Article 227, the High Court exercises limited supervisory jurisdiction and shall not re-appreciate evidence or interfere with factual findings of subordinate courts regarding partition modes unless the findings are perverse or indicate a flagrant violation of justice and legal principles.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Romesh Verma, Judge

1 The present petition arises out of the order, dated 11.12.2025, as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. in CMA No. 159/2023, whereby the report and proposed mode of partition submitted by the Local Commissioner were set aside and the objections raised by the respondents/defendants were accepted.

2 Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner/plaintiff and respondents/defendants are co-owners of the land comprised in Khata No. 135, Khatauni No. 152, Khasra No. 3642, measuring 0-01-36 hectares; Khata No. 134, Khatauni No. 151, Khasra No. 3643, measuring 0-00-14 hectares; and Khasra No. 3644, measuring 0-01-47 hectares, as per jamabandi for the year 2008-09, situated at VPO Maharal, Tappa, Tehsil Dhatwal, District Hamirpur.

3 The petitioner/plaintiff had instituted a Civil Suit No. 171/2017, titled as Subhash Chand vs. Nishant etc. for partition of the suit land, which was decreed by passing a preliminary decree on 28.02.2023, whereby the petitioner/plaintiff was held entitled to half share in the suit land, while respondents/defendants were held entitled to one fourth share each therein.

4 The respondents/defendants filed an application under Order XX Rule 18 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for finalizing the preliminary decree, dated 28.02.2023 passed in Civil Suit No. 171/2017.

5 The petitioner/plaintiff contested the aforesaid application on the ground that since the decree was passed in a civil suit filed by him, therefore, an application for finalizing the preliminary decree on behalf of the respondents/defendants is not maintainable and thus, liable to be dismissed.

6 It would be noticed that in order to comply with and implement the preliminary decree, Local Commissioner i.e. Naib Tehsildar, Dhatwal, District Hamripur, was appointed to demarcate the suit land and submit a proposed mode of partition. The Local Commissioner visited the spot and after recording statements of the parties submitted his report, dated 28.11.2023 in the following manner:-

As per the proposed partition, land bearing Khasra No. 3642/1, area 0-00-06 hectares, Khasra No 3642/3, area 0-00-90 hectares and Khasra No.3644/1, area 0-00-52 hectares, total 3 parcels of land having total area 0-01-48 hectares are proposed to be allotted to the applicant, Subhash Chand, son of Ghunghar. Similarly, land bearing Khasra No. 3642/2, area 0-00-40 hectares, Khasra No. 3643 area 0-00-14 hectares and Khasra No. 3644/2 area 0-00-95 hectares, total 3 parcels of land having area total area of 0-01-49 hectares are proposed to be allotted to the applicant, Nishant, son and Smt. Manju Lata, wife of Jagdev Chand, in accordance with their shares.

7 Thereafter, the respondents/defendants filed objections to the aforesaid report of the Local Commissioner on the premise that the proposed mode of partition has been prepared wrongly in order to give undue benefit to the petitioner/plaintiff. It was further stated that Khasra No. 3642 is situated on the roadside and the roadside land ought to have been divided in equal shares between the parties, however the Local Commissioner has not taken into consideration said parameters and has given substantial portion of the roadside area to the petitioner/plaintiff.

8 After analyzing the material placed on record and taking into consideration report of the Local Commissioner along with joint statements of the respective parties, the learned trial court vide its impugned order dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner/plaintiff qua maintainability of the application filed by the respondents/defendants under Order XX Rule 18 CPC on the ground that the shares of the parties were adjudicated by passing preliminary decree. Therefore, any party can file an application for finalization of the said preliminary decree and accepted the objections filed by the respondent/d