- (1.) In a representative suit preliminary decree for partition of Abadi Deh of village Garhi Sampla was passed by the Sub-Judge Ist Class, Rohtak, on 23rd Feb., 1981. The Court passing the preliminary decree appointed Shri S.S. Dahiya, Advocate, as the Local Commissioner to partition the land. However, later on that Local Commissioner was removed and Shri Vijay Singh, retired Tehsildar was appointed as the Local Commissioner to propose partition in accordance with the preliminary decree. He submitted his report suggesting partition of the Abadi land and against it some of the co-sharers filed written objections.
(2.) On 14th Oct., 1985 the objectors and/or their Advocates made joint statement before the Court to the following effect : "We agree that Shri Sultan Singh Dahiya, Advocate, Rohtak, be appointed referee in this case for deciding objections and any other dispute in the suit 'Surat Singh v. Kehri'. Whatever he decides will be binding on all the parties. He will be authorised to make necessary amendment in the Local Commissioner report." The Court passed the following order : "In view of the above statement of the parties and counsel, Shri Sultan Singh Dahiya, Advocate, Rohtak, is appointed as referee in this case. The parties will be bound by his decision."
(3.) As already noticed, the suit was in a representative capacity and the total number of share holders involved in the partition suit were 248. Only five persons were representing them under O.1, R.8 of the Civil P.C. (hereinafter called 'the Code'). Those landowners who were not satisfied with the proposed partition, filed objections either on the ground that they were wrongly denied allotment of their share of land, or that they should have been allotted a plot different than the one allotted to them. Referee made changes in the allotment proposed by the Local Commissioner which were of fundamental nature inasmuch as some of the allottees were deprived of the allotment without giving alternative plot, the area of some was reduced and in some cases new plots were allotted. The persons, who were affected by the changes were not given an opportunity of hearing by the Referee. Even the trial Court before accepting the suggestion to appoint referee and to bind the parties by his decision did not issue notice to the landowners. Even after the receipt of the report of the referee the trial Court did not issue notice to all the landowners and accepted his report as binding on the parties in view of the statement made on 14th Oct., 1985, and on the basis of the report submitted by the referee passed a final decree.;