JUDGMENT Mr. Amit Rawal J.:- The petitioners, three in number, namely Joga Singh, Gurmej Singh sons of Bachan Singh and Gurpreet Singh son of Joga Singh, whereas petitioner Nos.1 and 2, being respondent Nos.11 and 12 in the partition application moved under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (Annexure P-3) for partition of land measuring 346 kanals 14 marlas, comprised in Khewat No.264, remaining description given in the application, are before this Court for quashing of the order dated 04.09.2002 (Annexure P-22) passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Gurdaspur, order dated 30.12.2003 (Annexure P-24) passed by respondent No.3-Collector Sub Division, Gurdaspur, order dated 25.10.2005 (Annexure P-28) passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and order dated 30.10.2004 (Annexure P-30) passed by respondent No.1-Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioners, as per the pleadings, culled out in the writ petition is that the partition application at the instance of Inder Kaur, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.8 to 13 for partition of land bearing Rect. no.41, Khasra No.4/1, 4/2, Rect. No.32, Khasra No.24 min as per the jamabandi for the year 1986-87 stood partitioned vide order dated 28.12.1984 (Annexure P-4), therefore, the subsequent partition application in the year 1989 with respect to various other rectangles including the aforementioned rectangle in khasra numbers was not maintainable. 3. It is also pleaded that the aforementioned fact was concealed, which fact is evident from the interim order passed on application moved under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in the suit titled as “Darbara Singh and others Vs. Joga Singh and others”. The application moved under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for forcible dispossession had been dismissed and the misc. appeal filed assailing the same, also met with the same fate. The petitioner no.2 was arrayed as respondent No.12 in the partition application (Annexure P-30) and respondent No.14-Inder Kaur wd/o Palu, Jeeto wd/o Dalip Singh filed joint written statement that the partition application regarding the land in dispute was not maintainable. appeal filed assailing the same, also met with the same fate. The petitioner no.2 was arrayed as respondent No.12 in the partition application (Annexure P-30) and respondent No.14-Inder Kaur wd/o Palu, Jeeto wd/o Dalip Singh filed joint written statement that the partition application regarding the land in dispute was not maintainable. In fact, the factum of co-ownership was also denied on the premise that possession of the land allotted to respective co-sharers in the partition had already been delivered and therefore, there is no jointness of any khata and the factum of delivery of possession has been entered into Rapat No.356 and in this regard, Amarjit Kaur daughter and Jeeto wd/o Lakha Singh moved an application for deletion of their names before the Assistant Collector Grade I. An application was also moved for staying the partition proceedings, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.09.1990 and appeal preferred before the Collector by Inder Singh was accepted vide order dated 10.05.1991 (Annexure P6) and the Assistant Collector Grade I was directed to take necessary action to issue sanad takseem on the basis of old partition. 4. Against the aforementioned order, an appeal was preferred by Darbara Singh, Sucha Singh and Narinder Singh sons of Lakha Singh i.e. respondent Nos.5 to 7 before the Commissioner and the Commissioner vide order dated 31.10.1994 (Annexure P-7) set aside the order of the Collector on the premise that the holding of the share of Amarjit Kaur and Jeeto had been separated and rest of the shareholders remained joint and therefore, the partition application could not have been held to be not maintainable, when the previous partition proceedings pertained to share of Jeeto and Amarjit Kaur. 5. Mr. Rajinder Singla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the aforementioned fact as indicated above had been agitated by his clients and ultimately on 20.09.1995 (Annexure P-8), the Assistant Collector Grade I after preparation of mode of partition, sent the matter to Girdawar Halwa for the purpose of preparation of naksha zeem. Mode of partition (Annexure P-9) envisaged that the land had to be partitioned by keeping the possession intact and the area sold, mortgaged will be allotted in the share of the owners. 6. Mode of partition (Annexure P-9) envisaged that the land had to be partitioned by keeping the possession intact and the area sold, mortgaged will be allotted in the share of the owners. 6. Against the aforementioned order of partition, an appeal was preferred by Swaran Kaur under Section 118 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and the Collector vide order dated 01.10.1997 (Annexure P-10) remitted the matter to the Assistant Collector on the premise that naksha zeem was not being prepared in consonance with the mode of partition. In fact, the possession was being disturbed. On 15.04.1998 (Annexure P-11), Darbara Singh, Sucha Singh, Narinder Singh suffered a statement that land in dispute be partitioned by keeping the possession intact and there is a tubewell of Sucha Singh, Narinder Singh and Darbara Singh on certain khasra numbers. Similar was the statement dated 21.05.1998 (Annexure P- 12) of Gurmej Singh son of Bachan Singh and thereafter, mode of partition was prepared on 21.05.1998 (Annexure P-13). 7. Ultimately, the Revenue Patwari, Kaler Kalan vide report dated 17.11.1998 (Annexure P-15) on receipt of the order for preparation of naksha zeem stated that though the total area mentioned is 346 kanals 14 marlas but the total area of the owners come to 295 kanals 19 marlas, in essence, 50 kanals 11 marlas remained to be incorporated. Details of khasra numbers were given in the aforementioned report (Annexure P-15), thus, the application for partition was not maintainable, as per doctrine akin to partial partition. 8. On 16.02.1999 (Annexure P-16), the Assistant Collector Grade-I accepted the naksha zeem. Swaran Kaur widow of Sadhu Singh preferred an appeal against order dated 16.02.1999 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.03.2000 (Annexure P-17). The aforementioned order was assailed by Swaran Kaur in revision petition bearing No.73 of 2000 before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 08.10.2001 (Annexure P- 18) remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector for filing objections to the naksha zeem. The aforementioned order was assailed by Swaran Kaur in revision petition bearing No.73 of 2000 before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 08.10.2001 (Annexure P- 18) remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector for filing objections to the naksha zeem. Resultantly, Swaran Kaur filed objections vide Annexure P-19 and Joga Singh also submitted objection vide Annexure P- 20, on the premise, that it was specifically stated in the objection that the land measuring 2 kanals 13 marlas of killa No.25 has been shown in the kura of Joga Singh, Gurmej Singh sons of Bachan Singh whereas as per law, it should have been adjusted in the kura of Smt. Jeeto and Amarjit Kaur, who have sold the entire land and in fact, no land was left, therefore, it should have been adjusted in the kura of Darbara Singh, Sucha Singh and Narinder Singh sons of Lakha Singh, being real brothers of Amarjit Kaur and Jeeto, thus, prayed for deletion of 2 kanals 13 marlas. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide order dated 04.09.2002 (Annexure P-22) rejected the objections and new naksha zeem was ordered to be prepared. 9. The aforementioned order was assailed by Joga Singh, Gurmej Singh sons of Bachan Singh by filing appeal before the Collector on the premise that they are ready to take the whole land i.e. kura allotted to Swaran Kaur including the Rect. No.34 Killa No.16 recorded as gair mumkin pond , therefore, there was no need to waste the land of 1 kanals 18 marlas out of joint holding. The Collector vide order dated 30.12.2003 (Annexure P-24) dismissed the appeal and a revision petition (Annexure P- 25) was filed before the Commissioner assailing the aforementioned order and an application was also moved for spot inspection (Annexure P-26), which was not decided and ultimately vide order dated 25.10.2005 (Annexure P-28) the Commissioner dismissed the revision petition by holding it to be not suffering from any legal infirmity. The revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner challenging the aforementioned order was also dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2014 (Annexure P-30). 10. By examining the facts, he submitted that the partition application was, thus, not maintainable on following counts:- (i) no second partition is maintainable. The revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner challenging the aforementioned order was also dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2014 (Annexure P-30). 10. By examining the facts, he submitted that the partition application was, thus, not maintainable on following counts:- (i) no second partition is maintainable. (ii) as per the report of the Revenue Patwari, Kaler Kalan, it is a case of partial partition as the land measuring 50 kanals 11 marlas is yet to be recorded in the jamabandi in the name of co-owners. (iii) last partition had to be effected and question of title also involved. 11. All these points have not been pondered upon and therefore, the orders under challenge are liable to be set aside. 12. There is prescribed procedure with regard to dealing of the question of title in the Punjab Land Revenue Act i.e. under Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, therefore, the Revenue Court should not have entertained the application for partition. The process followed, thus, is without jurisdiction. Mode of partition, naksha zeem and final mode of partition are not sustainable. 13. The authorities below have not taken into consideration the ground of appeal and revision in its correct perspective and at the best, it is a fit case where the matter is required to be relegated to the Assistant Collector/Collector for appreciating the aforementioned legal submissions. 14. On the contrary, Ms. Amandeep Soni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.9, 13 and legal representatives of respondent No.5 submitted that the mode of partition was never objected to by the petitioners, which fact is evident from their statements. It is only when the Commissioner had remanded the matter back in revision petition preferred by Swaran Kaur giving liberty to file objection with regard to naksha zeem, Joga Singh preferred the objection. The said order did not grant any such liberty. Naksha zeem had been prepared according to the mode of partition. Everything has been taken care of. The application for partition is maintainable as the previous application was only for two khasra numbers and the petitioners had failed to place on record the contents of the application for partition except the order dated 28.12.1984 (Annexure P-4), which did not reflect the particulars of the khasra number. It was only with regard to land of Amarjit Kaur and Jeeto. Rest of the property had remained joint. It was only with regard to land of Amarjit Kaur and Jeeto. Rest of the property had remained joint. It was on the appeal preferred by Inder Singh before the Collector against the order dated 11.9.1990 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade which was allowed and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was directed to issue sanand on the basis of old partition, however, the same was set aside by the Commissioner vide order dated 31.10.1994, thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the writ petition as the orders under challenge are perfectly legal and justified. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Singla, for, the orders passed by the quasi-judicial authorities based upon the appreciation of fact and documentary evidence, cannot be interfered with unless and until there is illegality and perversity, much less, vitiated in law. No documentary evidence is pointed out to bring the case within the realm of judicial review. 16. It is conceded position on record that Gurmej Singh son of Bachan Singh-petitioner No.2 had suffered a statement dated 21.05.1998 (Annexure P-12) with regard to tubewell connection and keeping the possession intact, which reads as under:- “Statement of Gurmej Singh s/o Bachan Singh aged about 35 years occupation agriculture resident of Kaler Kalan. As per orders of the Court it is stated that where house and tubewell connection is installed by keeping intact the possession of the same, I have no objection regarding partitioning of the remaining area. ROAC -sd- Gurmej Singh, Joga Singh, Jagir Singh AC 1st Grade 21.05.1998 Statement of D.K. Dogra counsel for Swaran Kaur etc. stated that I agree with the aforesaid statements. ROAC -sd- AC 1st Grade 21.05.1998" 17. The naksha placed on record vide misc. application as Annexure P-36 shows that there has been equal distribution of land, taking into consideration the potentiality and quality of land. The reference to Annexure P-15, the report of the Revenue Patwari, Kaler Kalan with regard to shortfall of land measuring 50 kanals 11 marlas in the total holding of cosharers pales into insignificance, as it is only a matter of correction but nobody disputed the ownership of land measuring 346 kanals 10 marlas and application for partition is also of such area, thus, argument of Mr. Singla in order to bring the case within the realm of partial partition is weak and pale and therefore, rejected. 18. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 08.10.2011 (Annexure P-18) had granted opportunity to Swaran Kaur, who was the revisionist to file objection to the naksha zeem on the premise that she was not given opportunity to file objection. It is for the first time, therefore, Joga Singh woke up from slumber and filed the objection, though liberty was not granted to him. In fact, there was dispute only with regard to Khasra Nos.34//15 and 34/15&16. However, on going through the objections of Joga Singh, it was totally misdirected as though it only pertained to Killa No.25. Taking from any angle, even the other parties to partition would also have a right to file objection, the grievance of Joga Singh appears to be an attempt to delay the adjudication of the partition application. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 8.10.2011 giving option to Swaran Kaur to file objection to naksha zeem:- “......The petitioner is directed to file her objections before A.C. 1st Grade against naqsha Zeem on 5.11.2001 and A.C. Ist Grade shall pass his orders within 30 days after visiting the spot and verifying the quality of the land. If the land of these number khasras are of Chahi quality at the spot, there is no need to change the naqsha zeem and if the land is of Gairmumkin type under Chhaper as written in the naqsha Zeem, then this land should be given to all the parties according to their share. Parties are directed to appear before A.C. Ist Grade, Gurdaspur on 5.11.2001.” 19. Thus, in my view, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had been adopting dilatory tactics to delay the partition proceedings in order to tire out the opposite parties as the partition application was moved way back in the year 1989. This Court while sitting in this roster have come across to many such instances where the co-sharers are not being able to digest the effect of partition and as well as application for partition on behalf of one of the cosharers. This Court while sitting in this roster have come across to many such instances where the co-sharers are not being able to digest the effect of partition and as well as application for partition on behalf of one of the cosharers. It is an indicative that the co-sharers owing to the discord and differences amongst the family members do not want to keep the property intact and whenever an application is filed, make every possible endeavour and attempt to delay the execution by taking aid of the provisions of law. The instant is the case of such kind. 20. The authorities below have taken into consideration all the aspects. There is no question of res judicata in partition proceedings as no documentary evidence had been produced except the order dated 28.12.1984 (Annexure P-4). The naksha zeem dated 24.12.1984 has not been placed on record in order to project similarity of khasra numbers in the previous and the present application for partition, thus, the submission is based upon conjectures and surmises, much less, this Court had been deprived of appreciating the controversy in the absence of any other document. 21. No document has been placed on record to establish that there was dispute with regard to title as the parties are reflected as co-owners in the revenue record and suit of injunction is not question of title. Decision thereof has not been brought to the notice of this Court except dismissal of the interim application. Even otherwise, injunction suit amongst the coowners unless and until, one of the co-owners, is not able to establish exclusive possession, would not be maintainable. The appropriate remedy would be only of partition, which has been resorted to. 22. As an upshot of my observations, the orders under challenge do not call for interference as the same are based upon documentary evidence, much less, cannot be said to be vitiated in law. No ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed.