Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sh. Jaswant Singh And Ors. vs Financial Commissioner Revenue Govt. ... on 28 October, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1995)109PLR180
Author: S.P. Kurdukar
Bench: S.P. Kurdukar
JUDGMENT S.P. Kurdukar, C.J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated August 20, 1993 Annexure P/2, passed by the learned Commissioner in E.R. No. 178 of July 20, 1993. The learned Commissioner granted ex-parte stay order which vitally affected the rights of the present petitioners. On receipt of the notice of stay, the petitioners appeared before the Commissioner and requested him to vacate the stay order granted on August 20, 1993. The Commissioner after hearing the parties vide his order dated March 17, 1994, Annexure P/3, passed a referring order and it reads thus :-
"The learned F.C.R. is requested to decide the case at the earliest so that the redemption money already deposited by the respondent does not go waste."
2. It is unnecessary to set out the facts exhaustively in the order because admittedly, the Commissioner in his order dated August 20, 1993, Annexure P/2 was aware of the legal position that no appeal or revision was permissible under the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913, (hereinafter called the Act) before the Commissioner. The finding reads thus :-
"As per legal situation, there is no appeal or revision permissible under the redemption of Mortgage Act and at the level of this court and the parties have to go to civil Court Under Section 12 of the said Act."
3. Mrs. Rathore, appearing in support of this petition, urged that the learned Commissioner after having held that no appeal or revision was maintainable under the Act should not have issued the stay order dated August 20, 1993, Annexure P/2. The order dated August 20, 1993, Annexure P/2, is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. She further urged that once it is held that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal or a revision under the Act, then the order dated March 17, 1994 Annexure P/3, although made by the Commissioner after hearing both the sides, is unsustainable.
4. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, however, urged that the impugned order being discretionary order, no interference is called for.
5. We have gone through the provisions of the Act. We could not see any provision therein providing for appeal or revision before the Commissioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 was unable to point out a provision from the Act, which would give jurisdiction to the Commissioner to entertain an appeal or a revision against the impugned order dated June 8, 1993, passed by the Collector, Annexure P/1. It therefore, must follow that the revision and/or an appeal as entertained by the Commissioner being E.R. No. 178 of July 20, 1993, was without jurisdiction and consequently, the orders passed in the proceedings, at Annexures P/2 and P/3, cannot be sustained.
6. Before we conclude our judgment, we must also make a mention to the fairness on the part of Mr. Ramesh Kumar, the learned counsel for respondent No. 4, who drew our attention to the Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in Tulsi Das v. Diala Ram, AIR 1943 Lahore 176. This decision clearly supports the view of non-maintainability of appeal or revision before the Commissioner under the Act.
7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The orders at Annexures P/2 dated August 28, 1993, and P/3 dated March 17, 1994, are quashed and set aside. It is further directed that the Financial Commissioner shall not continue with the proceedings bearing E.R. No. 178 of July 20, 1993, and they be treated as closed. There will be no order as to costs.