JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated November 29, 1984 through which the revision filed against the order of the trail Court dated September 29, 1984 was dismissed. 2. That fact of this case in brief are that after preparation of the preliminary decree the Lekhpal was summoned and he prepared lots but they were not acceptable to the parties, hence they were rejected by the court. The trial court however while directing the Lekhpal to prepare fresh Kurras ordered him to divide plots No. 23 and 20 north-south and to divide them such a way that both the parties should get half each. The revisionist feeling aggrieved against that order preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner who dismissed, hence this second revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the trial Court should not have directed the Lekhpal to have divided the plots north-south because that would materially effect the interest of the revisionist and they will put up to a loss and that the plots should have been divided in such a way that the plaintiff could have come in the middle and each of the defendants could take their respective shared on the north-south respectively. 5. This suggestion was opposed by the opposite party on the ground that this sort of partition would not be feasible and equitable between the parties. 6. After hearing both the side I come to the conclusion that here seems to be a genuine dispute between the parties about shares that are given to them. In such a case the only solution to be that partition-should be made directly according to the valuation. The order of the trial court does not seem to have included the question of valuation which was pertinent in this matter. The trial court order, therefore, deserves to be set aside and it would be directed to get fresh Kurras prepared according to the valuation. 7. The revision is, therefore, allowed. The order of the trial court does not seem to have included the question of valuation which was pertinent in this matter. The trial court order, therefore, deserves to be set aside and it would be directed to get fresh Kurras prepared according to the valuation. 7. The revision is, therefore, allowed. The order of the trial court dated September 29, 1984 and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated November 29, 1984 are set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial court with the direction that it shall order the Lekhpal to prepare fresh lots in accordance with the valuation or according to the compromise of the parties it they come to any terms. The lots prepared earlier by the Lekhpal were rightly rejected by the trial court.