case erroneously made its way to the Court of the Additional District Judge because the Executing Court allowed “a meaningless petition to be entertained which contained a reference to inconsistent provisions”. In other words, if Section 47 was taken recourse to as a successor in interest, then a petition under Order XXI Rule 58 or Order XXI Rule 97 could not have been maintained. (iv) The duty of determining the share of each party arises only when such party seeks said determination. The absence of such a prayer does not take away the competence of a Court to uphold a plaintiff’s claim and determination of his share. (v) Having observed thus, the matter was kept pending for the executing court to appoint a local commissioner who was to be the Naib Tehsildar of the concerned district. The remit was to identify the property in Khasra No.2259 and locate 58 Marlas in that Khasra number; assess the nature of construction and the extent of vacant land and draw up a plan accordingly. (vi)