CWP No.17509 of 1998 was dismissed as infructuous. The Court held that the Financial Commissioner's order had already been implemented, leaving no cause of action for the petitioners despite procedural lapses regarding process fees and non-filing of partition application fees.
The writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous.
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.
CWP No.17509 of 1998
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.17509 of 1998 Date of decision:03.02.2017
Shaminder Singh and another
... Petitioners
Vs.
Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab, Chandigarh and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. M.K.Dogra, Advocate for the petitioners.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
The present writ petition is against the impugned order Annexure P-4, whereby, the private respondents had filed ROR bearing No.216 of 1993-94 against the orders of Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur dated 23.02.1994, whereby, the order of Collector Sub Division, Ferozepur dated 28.07.1993 finalizing the naksha bey, had been upheld. The area under partition is 271 kanals 16 marlas situated in village Dohak, Tehsil Muktsar, District Faridkot.
The Registry has placed this case before the Court on the premise that owning to the fact that due non-filing of process fee, service upon respondents No.2 to 10 and 14 has not been effected.
I have gone through the orders passed by this Court from time to time indicating that even the process fees on some occasions had not been
Savita 2017.02.08 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP No.17509 of 1998
{2}
filed and the matter at one point of time was adjourned sine die and thereafter, it was admitted. In my view, the writ petition at that time was liable to be dismissed as per the provisions of Order 9 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Be that as it may, the contention of petitioners herein and the applicants in the partition application, had been that as per the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Muktsar, dated 27.09.1997 vide which all the three impugned orders of the lower revenue Courts passed in partition proceedings have been held null, void and illegal having not effect on the rights of Rachhpal Singh son of Isher Singh, whereas, on the contrary, the petitioners relied upon the judgment and decree dated 1.3.1994, whereby, the sale by Chand Kaur wife of Bishan Singh of her 3/5th share in the holding in favour of Shaminder Singh – Nikka Singh has been held to be valid and binding on the parties and have a right to seek partition.
In view of the Civil Court order dated 27.09.1997, all the three orders affirming naksha bey had been set aside. The Financial Commissioner ordered for entire holding of the co-sharers subject to partition and and not a part thereof. The Assistant Collector Grade-I, has also been directed to carve out of a tak of 70 kanals 16 marlas for Rachhpal Singh son of Ishar Singh as per the decree of the Civil Court.
In my view, the order dated 3.04.1998 had already been implemented. The petitioners are not interested in pursuing the matter as the process fees has not been filed after giving number of opportunities. Once the aforesaid order had already been implemented, no cause of action
Savita 2017.02.08 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP No.17509 of 1998
{3}
survives in the present writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being
infructuous.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE February 03, 2017 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
Savita 2017.02.08 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition retains any cause of action when the impugned orders have already been implemented in accordance with previous court orders.
Shaminder Singh
Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
