This revision petition sought to permit a petitioner prevailing ex-parte to file objections against the reported mode of partition. The High Court dismissed the petition, quashing the application to file objections, noting that such permission would effectively set aside prior ex-parte orders dismissed due to the petitioner's neglect.
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.
Page 1 of 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
118 CR-1200-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.02.2023
Amar Nath ...Petitioner(s) Vs. Jagdev & Others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Revision Petition has been filed by defendant No.4/petitioner seeking setting aside of order dated 17.01.2023 (Annexure P9) whereby application filed by the petitioner for allowing him to join proceedings at this stage, and file objections, if any, on suggested mode of partition, has been partly allowed.
SUNENA 2023.03.02 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 2 of 3
objections if any, on suggested mode of partition by concerned revenue officials. Respondents filed reply (Annexure P8) opposing the petitioner’s application for joining proceedings. Vide impugned order dated 17.01.2023 (Annexure P9) learned Court below has partly allowed application of the petitioner and allowed him to join proceedings at this stage only for argument and dismissed the same qua permitting him to file objections against suggested mode of partition.
petitioner.
SUNENA 2023.03.02 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 3 of 3
against ex-parte. Thereafter, report of Local Commissioner regarding mode of partition was received on 05.01.2019; whereafter, the petitioner challenged order dated 01.04.2017, which application was dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2019. However, petitioner did not challenge the order dated 27.03.2019, and instead filed present application dated 10.05.2019 (Annexure P7) for permission to join proceedings and file objections.
dismissed.
22.02.2023 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
SUNENA 2023.03.02 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a revision petition should be allowed to permit a petitioner, who chose to appear ex-parte after notice, to file objections against the suggested mode of partition at a final stage.
Whether permitting the petitioner to file objections at this stage would amount to setting aside previous ex-parte orders.
Amar Nath
Jagdev & Others
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
