Pritam Singh v. Financial Commissioner & ORS

RSA No.3983 of 2016 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3983 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.22.11.2018 Pritam Singh ...Appellant Vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue & Rehabilitation), Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate for the appellant.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) C.M. No.10282-C of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 46 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned.

Application is allowed.

C.M. No.10283-C of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 5 days in filing of the appeal is condoned.

Application is allowed.

RSA No.3983 of 2016 Concededly, the appellant-plaintiff had assailed order of the authorities dated 07.11.1988, 18.12.1985, 18.03.1985 and 26.2.1983, 17.03.1986, 11.04.1989 in the proceedings which were initiated by Kewal Singh, the earlier allottee of land measuring 77 kanals 11 marlas, which according to the plaintiff, were quashed, as the plainntiff derived interest in the aforementioned property in an auction held in 1977 but was not successful in defending the PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.18 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA No.3983 of 2016 (O&M) -2litigation initiated by Kewal Singh, first allottee. The preliminary issue in pursuance to the objection has been decided against the appellant-plaintiff vis-a-vis jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The appeal was dismissed in default and in such process, almost 15 years gone by, resulting into judgment and decree of the lower Appellate court in 2015.

Confronted with the Full Bench of this Court rendered in State of Haryana and others Vs. Vinod Kumar and others 1987 R.R.R. 81, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to cite any judgment except single bench judgment of this Court rendered in Mukand Singh and others Vs. Smt. Nirmal Sharma and others 2013 (22) RCR (Civil) 650 and Soran Singh alias Swaran Singh Vs. Mehta Sita Ram 1984 PLJ 570.

I am of the view that in such circumstances, the orders could have been assailed only by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No ground for interference is made out. However, this would not bar the appellant to avail the remedy, if permissible in law. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE November 22, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.18 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document