ORDER R.P.S. Pawar, FC. - This petition has bee filed against the order dated 14.2.2003 of Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, whereby he has accepted the Revision Petition and remanded the case to A.C. Ist Grade for fresh decision in accordance with the mode of partition, which had already been accepted by the parties. 2. It transpires that the mode of partition between the parties was decided on 22.8.2001 and final partition was accepted on 4.10.2002 in the presence of the parties. 3. When that order was challenged, the Collector dismissed the appeal on the ground that mode of partition was never challenged and after the partition, the Instrument of Partition has been issued. As it has become final, it cannot now be set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals), while deciding the Revision petition held that the partition has not been made in accordance with the Mode of Partition. He remanded the case to A.C. Ist Grade for a fresh decision. The relevant portion of his order reads as under :- "I have gone through the pleas of the counsels and the record on file. It is true that the proceedings before the Asstt. Collector Ist Grade became ex parte. But it is not a ground for Asstt. Collector Ist Grade to deviate from the laid down procedure. Rather in case ex parte proceedings, it becomes the duty of the Presiding Officer to ensure that the interests of the absent party are not compromised in any manner. A careful perusal of the site plan (Naksha "irri) shows that this principal has not been implemented in letter & spirit. Although sanad takseem has been issued and at this stage the interference of superior court should be in the rarest of rare cases, yet I feel that it is such a case because site plan naksha "Irri" clearly shows that respondents have been given a better and bigger piece of land in khasra Nos. 18, 23 and 24. In both chunks abutting the road, the frontage given to the respondents is more than the petitioners, whereas before the partition, as per the statement of the counsels, the petitioners has more frontage on the road. Therefore, I accept the revision petition and remand the case to Asstt. Collector Ist Grade for afresh decision in accordance with the mode of partition which has already been accepted by both the parties." 4. Therefore, I accept the revision petition and remand the case to Asstt. Collector Ist Grade for afresh decision in accordance with the mode of partition which has already been accepted by both the parties." 4. It is clearly established from the order of Commissioner that he has only remanded the case to enable the A.C. Ist Grade to decide it as per Mode of Partition. The petitioner, therefore, will have sufficient opportunity to plead his case before the A.C. Ist Grade and in case he is dissatisfied there will the more than adequate opportunity to file an appeal before the competent authority. 5. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere in the order of the Commissioner. Accordingly, the same is upheld and appeal is dismissed in limine. The A.C. Ist Grade will, however, ensure the presence of the concerned parties before deciding the case. The parties are advised to appear before him on 17.12.2003. Appeal dismissed.