Ravinder Singh And ANR. v. Gurpreet Singh And ORS.

CR No.6542 of 2016 {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6542 of 2016 Date of decision:29.09.2016 Ravinder Singh and others ... Petitioners Vs.

Gurpreet Singh and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. H.R.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) The petitioner-plaintiffs are aggrieved of the dismissal of the ad interim application filed in a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that order of partition dated 17.09.2014 passed by the Assistant Collector Grade II and instrument of partition dated 3.12.2014 in pursuance to the order dated 17.09.2014 passed in partition case titled as Gurpeet Singh and others vs. Harbhajan Singh and others in respect of suit land, being illegal, null and void.

Mr. H.R.Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiffs submits that the aforementioned orders were passed at the back of the petitioners. It is in this background of the matter, the suit aforementioned was filed. The partition order is not according to the actual partition and the preparation of Naksha-Urra, Naksha-Arra and other orders in the partition proceedings are also illegal, null and void and under the garb Savita 2016.10.07 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CR No.6542 of 2016 {2} of the aforementioned orders, the respondent-defendants are dispossessing the petitioner-plaintiffs and thus, urges this Court for restraining the defendants from dispossessing the petitioner-plaintiffs. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs and appraised the paper book.

Before dictating the order, this Court raised a query to Mr. H.R.Bhardwaj, as to whether any remedy of revision or appeal has been availed of or not, the answer given was in positive as the matter is stated to be pending before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. In such case, once the petitioners have already availed the aforementioned remedy, can seek the interim protection but not in the manner and mode as has been adopted. In case, the order under challenge has been passed at the back of the petitioners, it is within the domain of the Financial Commissioner, who may pass the order, in accordance with law, keeping in view the aforementioned contentions.

In view of the aforementioned observations, I do not intend to differ with the findings rendered in the impugned order, much less, the same cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE September 29, 2016 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Savita 2016.10.07 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh