- (1.) This order of mine would dispose of two civil revisions (C.Rs. 1074 and 1077 of 1974) as common question of law and fact is involved in both the petitions.
(2.) The petitioner in each case filed a suit for partition in which a preliminary decree was passed and a Local Commissioner was appointed to partition the property. The Local Commissioner submitted his report. The contesting defendant in each case filed objections against the report of the Local Commissioner. On 12th August, 1974, when the cases came up for hearing before the trial Court, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent in the case out of which Civil Revision No. 1074 of 1974 has arisen, made a statement to the following effect : "My client is prepared to pay Rs. 1,000/- over and above if the portion allotted to him is given to the plaintiffs and the portion allotted to the plaintiff is given to him (my client). These portions have been allotted by the Local Commissioner," In the case out of which Civil Revision No. 1077 of 1974 has arisen, the following statement was made by the learned counsel for the contesting defendant-respondent : "My client is prepared to pay Rs. 4,000/- over and above if the portion allotted to him is given to the plaintiff and the portion allotted to plaintiff is given to him (my client). These portions have been allotted by the Local Commissioner." The offer made in the above mentioned statement was not accepted by the plaintiff in each case as would be evident from the statement of his counsel made on the same date before the Court. Thereafter, the trial Court, instead of deciding the objections on merits, appointed another Local Commissioner for suggesting the mode of partition vide orders, dated 12th August, 1974. As earlier observed it is against the said orders of the trial Court that the present revisions have been filed.
(3.) After bearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that these petitions deserve to be allowed.;