Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh vs Financial Commissioner And Others on 7 November, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 23924 of 2013
Date of Decision:07.11.2013
Jagjit Singh ...Petitioner
V/s.
Financial Commissioner and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.
Present: Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (Oral).
Respondent No. 5 filed the partition application. During the proceedings, father of the petitioner died but his legal representatives were not impleaded and summoned by the Court and 'Naksha Be' was sanctioned. The petitioner filed objections against 'Naksha Be' which were not properly considered and ultimately dismissed on 19.09.2007. His appeal against that order was also dismissed on 31.01.2008. Aggrieved from that order, the petitioner filed revision which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 22.04.2009. The petitioner then filed an application for restoration, but the said application too was dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is patently illegal and has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rafiz and another V/s. Munshilal and another 1981 AIR (SC) 1400 and judgment of this Court in case of Karam Pal Versus Ramesh Jain 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 613. On the other hand counsel for the respondents Divyanshi 2013.11.14 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 23924 of 2013 -2- has submitted that the order of dismissing the petition for non-prosecution had to be passed because despite giving three opportunities to the petitioner, he did not deposit the publication fee and no affidavit was filed on behalf of the Advocate to the effect that he could not ask the petitioner about deposit of publication fee.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. In the case of Rafiz and another (supra), it has been held that: -
"The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the Court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest."
In the case of Karam Pal (supra), the case was dismissed for non-prosecution on account of non-filing of process fee in which it was held that the party cannot be allowed to suffer because of lapse on the part of counsel.
Since it is a case where the petitioner is agitating against preparation of 'Naksha Be' which has to be made on the basis of mode of partition, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be given one more opportunity to pursue his case which has been dismissed by the revisional Court on account of non-prosecution. Thus, impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the revisional Court with a direction to decide the same as early as possible, Divyanshi 2013.11.14 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 23924 of 2013 -3- in accordance with law.
Parties are directed to appear before the revisional Court on 09.12.2013.
Registry is directed to inform both the counsel for the parties about this order.
November 07, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Divyanshi
2013.11.14 10:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh