Dismissed

Kali Dass v. Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab Civil Secretariat Chandigarh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jan 2017CWP/16511/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed a writ petition filed by a shut-out co-sharer challenging a partition order. The court held that no cause of action survived as another co-sharer had already challenged the order via a revision dismissed on limitation. The petition was deemed devoid of merit and misconceived.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kali Dass Vs Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab Civil… — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CWP No.16511 of 2016

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.16511 of 2016 Date of decision:13.01.2017

Kali Dass

... Petitioner

Vs.

Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present:Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate, for Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶12

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned orders, whereby, ROR No.773 of 2014 filed against the order dated 20.11.2008 has been dismissed on account of delay and latches, i.e., barred by law of limitation, i.e., 2128 days.

¶13

Ms. Neha Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner -Kali Dass son of Sh. Baisakhi Ram was never represented and had no knowledge of the partition proceedings. It is only other brother Shiv Ram son of Baisakhi Ram was represented. The order dated 20.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division upholding the order of mode of partition was not in his knowledge which has seriously prejudiced the right and interest of the petitioner. After having acquired the knowledge, revision petition has been filed but the same has

¶14

Savita 2017.01.19 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶15

CWP No.16511 of 2016

¶16

{2}

¶17

been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, appraised the paper book and of the view that against the order dated 20.11.2008, already another co-sharer of the petitioner, namely, Shiv Ram had filed ROR No.320 of 2009 before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab but the same was dismissed on 22.11.2013. At the best, the petitioner could have joined the brother/co-sharer by challenging the aforementioned order.

¶19

In view of the fact that ROR No.320 of 2009 has been dismissed on 22.11.2013 and the said order has attained finality, therefore, no cause of action survives in the present writ petition. Even otherwise, nothing has been disclosed in the writ petition qua the consequential effect, i.e., passing of sanad takshim . The writ petition is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶21

	(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
January 13, 2017 savita
Whether Speaking/Reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶22

Savita 2017.01.19 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Kali Dass v. Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab Civil Secretariat Chandigarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kali Dass v. Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab Civil Secretariat Chandigarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Capt. S.S.Panesar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sukhjinder Singh Vs Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Dara Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Nirbhai Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sukhwider Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gopal Krishan & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation & Ors.