Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J. - (1.) S.A. No. 36 of 2004: Mr. R.K. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that against the judgment and decree dated 7.10.1996 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Latehar in Partition Suit No. 36 of 1988, the defendants-appellants filed Partition Appeal No. 9 of 2002 which was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Latehar. He submitted that the appellants have no grievance so far as the decree of partition of half share each in the suit property is concerned, but the Takhta prepared by the earlier Pleader Commissioner was given a go by only on the purported objection filed on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents, and that too, without giving opportunity to the defendants-appellants. He further submitted that the finding of the learned lower appellate Court in paragraph 17 of the judgment is perverse. He referred to the lower Court records to show that the acknowledgment sent by Shri Harihar Dubey, Amin Commissioner, did not bear the signature of Bali Shashi-appellant No. 3. He further submitted that the lawyer concerned did not inform the appellants about the order sheets shown to him.
(2.) Mr. K. M. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand supported the finding recorded in paragraph 17 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court and submitted that inspite of sufficient opportunity, the appellants did not raise any objection for preparation of Takhta by the Amin Commissioner Shri Harihar Dubey.
(3.) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, in my opinion, the parties should be given opportunity of hearing on Takhtabandi report submitted by Shri Harihar Dubey, Amin Commissioner. The parties will file their pleadings, in support of, or objections, to the said report, before the lower appellate Court, within four weeks from today, which will be disposed of after giving opportunity of hearing to them in accordance with law, as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months thereafter. The parties will co-operate in early disposal of the matter. It is made clear that this matter is being remitted only for hearing on the said Takhtabandi, and not on the merits of the judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court and the lower appellate Court, regarding partition on merits.;