ORDER B.K. Srivastava, F.C. - This revision petition relates to partition of land measuring 77K-19M comprising of 49/21(8-0), 207(1-15), 50//(2-16), 25 min (3- 10), 36//20 min (4-0), min (3-15), 22 min (2-13), 37//16/1 min (0-6), 45//2 min (4-11), 36//19/2 min (7-0), 22 min (2-14), 23 (5-2), 36//20 min (4-0), 21 min (3-17), 22 min (2-13), 37//16/1 min (3-11), 45//1/3 (5-8), 2 min (3-9), 3/1(4-6), 50//25 min (4-10), Khewat No. 221, Khatauni Nos. 322, 323, 324, 325 situated in village Ghal Khurd, Tehsil and District Ferozepur in which three brothers namely Joginder Singh, Mohan Singh and Kartar Singh were co-sharers of 1/3rd each. 2. The present petitioner Kartar Singh had applied for the partition which was finalised and, vide the impugned order of Assistant Collector dated 18/10/04 Sanad Takseem was issued by rejecting application of the respondent, Joginder Singh to set aside the ex parte proceeding, which was taken against him. His plea is that he was resident of Rajasthan and was wrongly proceeded ex parte. Collector dismissed his appeal vide order dated 30/3/2005 and then he preferred revision before the Commissioner who granted a stay order on 25/4/05 which was further extended on 10/1/06. In the meanwhile, present petitioner, Kartar Singh approached this Court with the present revision petition saying that transfer of possession as per the partition order had been put in effect on 10/1/06 but on the same date the Commissioner extended the said stay order although it had become infructuous due to transfer of possession in terms of the partition order. 3. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, I deemed it fit to recall the case from the court of Commissioner, which has been received. The main contestants are Avtar Singh and Vir Singh who were the vendees of the present respondent No. 1, Joginder Singh who had preferred the aforesaid appeal and revision before the Commissioner. They are being represented through counsel, Sh. G.S. Nagra. 4. The counsel for the petitioner who opposes the re-opening of the partition proceeding at the respondents request has mainly emphasised following points :- (1) The respondent, Joginder Singh had approached civil Court for permanent injunction by hiding the pendency of partition proceeding. Permanent injunction was refused by the Court. He also did not disclose to the Collector/Commissioner that he had already approached the civil Court where he failed to get injunction. Permanent injunction was refused by the Court. He also did not disclose to the Collector/Commissioner that he had already approached the civil Court where he failed to get injunction. (2) As the transfer of possession had taken place vide the rapat roznmacha dated 10/1/06, the stay order extended by the Commissioner on the same date become infructuous. (3) The respondent, Joginder Singh had notice of the partition proceeding because his address as given in the said civil suit and the appeal before the Collector shows that he was represented through his son, Jagdish Singh, as General Power of Attorney and he was shown as resident of the village Ghall Khurd. 5. I am not able to find merit in the contention of the petitioners counsel due to the following reasons :- (1) A civil suit for injunction is entirely different from a partition case. The grievance of the respondents regarding unfair partition due to ex parte proceeding cant be rejected out-rightly on the ground that they did not get the injunction from the civil Court. Injunction is normally refused qua another co-sharer of a joint khata. As the very purpose of a partition proceeding is to achieve severance of joint ownership, injunction matter has no bearing on the partition process. (2) The alleged transfer of possession, as shown by the rapat roznamcha was certainly done on 10.1.06 in great haste because revision petition of Joginder Singh was already pending before the Commissioner who had earlier (on 25/1/05) granted an ad-interim stay order. The rapat was unwarranted and it is certainly a paper formality. Even if such a transfer of possession is not a paper formality, a subordinate Revenue Officer cant pre- empt and defeat the adjudicatory process at appellate/revisional level by showing such unwarranted haste for implementation of Assistant Collectors order. (3) The address of respondent, Joginder Singh as apparent from the Assistant Collectors order shows that he was resident of Rajasthan. Therefore, it was necessary that the notice was served to him on the Rajasthan address which was not done. (3) The address of respondent, Joginder Singh as apparent from the Assistant Collectors order shows that he was resident of Rajasthan. Therefore, it was necessary that the notice was served to him on the Rajasthan address which was not done. The argument that he was represented through his son Jagdish Singh (who is shown as resident of Village Ghal Khurd in Ferozepur) in the civil suit and the appeal before the Collector is not relevant because in so far as the proceeding before Assistant Collector is concerned, Joginder Singh was entitled to be served at his Ganganagar address in Rajasthan. The occasion for going to the civil Court or in appeal to the Collector arose much later when the partition had already been finalised. Therefore, if he filed the suit/appeal through his general power of attorney- holder son who is shown as resident of the village in Ferozepur, it does not make any difference. The contention of Joginder Singh is certainly not answered by this argument. Joginder Singh, the respondent has brought to my notice that the partition was carried out by disturbing his possession to his detriment. The petitioner was given much land abutting the eastern pucca road although he did not possess any land on this side. The vendees who purchased the land from him (Joginder Singh) have their house on this side and after purchasing the land on 28/12/05, they discovered that partition had already taken place by treating their vendor, Joginder Singh ex parte and in this process they were deprived of much of the land adjoining their house. A map showing Naksha Jeem in the Commissioners file shows that much less land was allotted to Joginder Singh on this side. 6. It has been said by the parties that the road on right side is mettled and more valuable whereas the road on the left side is kutcha. It is quite possible that the Assistant Collector might have been given the allotment to the petitioner on the right side in order to give him access to this mettled road because while possessions are honoured, access on main road is also an important requirement. It is, however, not clear as to what was the Mode of Partition. 7. It is quite possible that the Assistant Collector might have been given the allotment to the petitioner on the right side in order to give him access to this mettled road because while possessions are honoured, access on main road is also an important requirement. It is, however, not clear as to what was the Mode of Partition. 7. I feel that the more and relevant issue at this stage before me is that the respondent, Joginder Singh (now his vendees) need to be heard in the interest of fair partition. The Assistant Collector would certainly be entirely free to adopt any Mode of Partition as per his judgment. He need not be influenced at all by any observation made in this order. He may start the proceeding from framing the Mode of Partition afresh. The vendees should of course be impleaded. With this direction the parties are directed through their counsel to appear before the Assistant Collector on 14/5/07 for further proceeding in the matter. In this manner, Joginder Singhs appeal which was recalled from the Commissioners court is accepted and partition order and the impugned Sanad Takseem dated 18/10/04 passed by the Assistant Collector is set aside. Announced. Petition dismissed.