Dismissed

Pritam Singh v. Financial Commissioner & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Nov 2018RSA/3983/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned delay in preferring two constitutional challenges to an appellate decree dismissing an appeal regarding land litigation. The court then disposed of the main appeal without ground for interference though it did not bar availing future remedies.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; appeal dismissed; no ground for interference under Article 226 found.

Pritam Singh Vs Financial Commissioner & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.3983 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.3983 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.22.11.2018

Pritam Singh

...Appellant

Financial Commissioner (Revenue & Rehabilitation), Punjab and others ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)

¶12

C.M. No.10282-C of 2016

¶13

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 46 days

¶14

in re-filing of the appeal is condoned.

¶15

Application is allowed.

¶16

C.M. No.10283-C of 2016

¶17

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 5 days

¶18

in filing of the appeal is condoned.

¶19

Application is allowed.

¶20

RSA No.3983 of 2016

¶21

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

¶22

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.18 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

RSA No.3983 of 2016 (O&M)

¶24

-2-

¶25

litigation initiated by Kewal Singh, first allottee.

¶26

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.

¶27

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 .

¶28

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.

¶29

The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.

¶30

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶31

November 22, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶32

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.18 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pritam Singh v. Financial Commissioner & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Singh v. Financial Commissioner & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumari Vs Kamla Devi

M/S Master Bhatti & Sons Vs Daljit Singh

Rupinder Singh and Ors. Vs Sukhdev Singh and Ors.

M/S Capsugel Health Care Ltd. Vs Harish and Ors.

Satpal Singh Vs Surjit Singh

Panmeshwari and Another Vs Jaipal