ORDER
Sat Pal, J.
1 This petition has been directed against the order dated 4.1.1997 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (SD) Ropar. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the objections of the petitioner against the application filed by the respondent for final decree of partition. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.
2. Mr. Mittal, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised only one point against the impugned order to the effect that in the preliminary decree only the rights and shares of the respondent have been declared and the rights and shares of the petitioners have not been declared. He, therefore, contended that the final decree of partition could not be passed without modification in the preliminary decree declaring the rights and shares of the remaining parties. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments.
(i) Sarbeswar Panda and other v. Bibhabasu Panda, A.I.R. 1977 Cal. 288.
(ii) S. V. Muthu and Ors. v. Veerammal and Anr., A.I.R. 1981 Madras 307.
(iii) Md. Makbul Hussain and Anr. v. Mst. Zubeda Khatoon and Ors., A.I.R. 1990 Guwahati 33.
3. Mr. Batta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, Submits that from the impugned order, it is evident that the petitioners have raised many objections in addition to the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner today and as such the petitioner should not be permitted to raise the other objections except the objection which has been raised in the arguments by the learned counsel of the petitioner.
4. I have beard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
5. It is not disputed that in this case a preliminary decree of partition was passed on 20.12.1989. From the aforesaid decree, it is evident that vide this decree it was held that the respondent Surjit Kaur is entitled to separate possession by way of partition to the extent of 1/6 share. The decree further shows that the rights and shares of the other four-co-owners namely Rani Manchanda, Inderjit Manchanda, Manjit Manchanda, Sandeep Manchanda were not declared in terms of the preliminary decree dated 20.12.1989. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that unless the said preliminary decree is modified and the rights and shares of the other co-owners are declared in the preliminary decree, the final decree cannot be passed.
6. In view of the above discussion, the petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the final partition decree cannot be passed until and unless the preliminary decree is modified for having the rights and shares of the other co-owners of the suit property declared. It is, however, made clear that the other objections raised by the petitioner before the learned executing court stand dismissed. It shall be open to the respondents to take such steps to have the preliminary decree amended in such a manner to include a declaration of their rights as regards their share in the suit property. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. With this order the petition stands disposed of.
Copy of the order be given dasti on usual payment.