Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Adam Paper Product Pvt. Ltd vs State Of H.P. & Othersrt on 21 April, 2016
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Rajiv Sharma, Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA .
CWP No. 3412 of 2015 Reserved on: 8.4.2016 Date of Decision: 21.4.2016 M/S Adam Paper Product Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner.
of Versus State of H.P. & othersrt ....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent-State.
Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Ms. Shweta Joolka, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 to 10.
Sureshwar Thakur, J The petitioner through the instant petition prays mainly for the following reliefs:-
"1. That the order dated 14.7.2015 Annexure P-15 passed by the Ld. F.C appeal and partition proceeding 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:09:17 :::HCHP
...2...
concluded vide order dated 15.1.2007 in case (Misal) No. .
103 of 2005 by A.C 1st Grade, Paonta Sahib, may kindly be quashed and set aside.
2. The order passed by the Ld. Sub Divisional Collector Paonta Sahib dated 10.3.2014 may kindly be confirmed and the respondent may kindly be directed to of re-partition of the land in dispute."
2. The principal ground as agitated before this Court for rt setting aside the impugned order rendered by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, wherein the recommendations of the learned Collector, Sub Division, Paonta Sahib of 10.3.2014 made in Case No. 48/10 for setting aside the ex-parte order stood declined rests upon a contention addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, of the petitioner herein standing despite it not standing served arousable from the factum of its address divulged in Annexure P-11 being not its correct address it un-tenably standing proceeded against ex-parte in an application for partition preferred before the A.C 1st Grade, Paonta Sahib hence concomitantly rendering it nonest. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended before this Court that when the petitioner herein stood not served in accordance with law, the order wherein the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:09:17 :::HCHP ...3...
petitioner stood for the reasons aforestated untenably proceeded .
against ex-parte besides whereupon the partition proceedings stood concluded, stands vitiated/deprived of its legal efficacy. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner stand ripped of its legal vigor besides carries no legal worth in the face of the of address mentioned in Annexure P-11 being congruous and analogous to the address of the petitioner herein reflected in Annexure P-2. In rt view of above, there is no merit in the petition the same is accordingly dismissed, as also, the pending applications, if any.
( Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
21.4.2016 ( Sureshwar Thakur ),
(priti) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:09:17 :::HCHP