Second appeal dismissed in default. Appellants failed to appear for hearing. Earlier revenue order regarding land partition was under challenge in a pending writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.08.05 14:23I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
R.S.A.No.3294 of 2010 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A.No.3294 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 1.8.2013
Balwant Singh and Ors.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Rajiv and Anr.
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: None for the appellants-plaintiffs.
Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate for respondent No.1.
JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL)
Plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below whereby their claim of ownership over 10 marlas of land in Khasra No.13//18/3 was rejected and they were held to be owners in possession qua 5 marlas of land only.
The remaining 5 marlas was held to be in the ownership of respondent-defendant No.1/Rajiv having exchanged the land. It was held that the defendant-respondent No.2 Sarwan Kumar had purchased the remaining 5 marlas of land vide sale deed dated 30.4.1991 executed in his favour by the plaintiffs. Said Sarwan Kumar thereafter exchanged the suit land with defendant No.1-Rajiv vide mutation No.3493.
This court, on 18.1.2012 while issuing notice of motion passed the following order:
“Contention of the counsel is that in a revenue proceedings between the same parties, CWP No.10107 of 2006 stands admitted on 2.11.2011. The dispute is also regarding the same plot. He has placed on record photo copy of the said
R.S.A.No.3294 of 2010 (O&M) #2#
orders. A perusal of the order goes on to show that the Court had directed 10 marlas of land to be divided inter se between the parties.
Notice of motion for 19.4.2012.”
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as on today, only the above referred writ petition challenging the partition proceedings remains pending, wherein no interim order has still been passed. He further submits that although neither a stay has been ordered in the said writ petition nor in the present appeal, yet the revenue Authorities are not implementing the instrument of partition ( sanad taksim) .
A perusal of the above reproduced order reveals that the present appeal has been unnecessarily got adjourned by learned counsel for the appellants.
At the time of hearing today, none has appeared for the appellants to argue the case.
Dismissed in default.
August 01, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE
Balwant Singh and Ors.
Rajiv and Anr.
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
