Dhoom Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4047 P&H

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050918-DB



                                                                   2023:PHHC:050918-DB


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
                          ****
                                    CM-1460-LPA-2022 in/and
                                        LPA-630-2022 (O&M)
                                   Date of Decision:13.04.2023
                          ****

Dhoom Singh                                                          . . . . Appellant

                                          Vs.
State of Haryana and others                                          . . . . Respondents

                        ****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
       HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
                        ****

Present:     Mr.Ishnoor Singh, Advocate, for
             Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.
                                    ****
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J. (ORAL)

CM-1460-LPA-2022

This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

to condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal.

Notice in the application as well as in the main appeal.

Ms.Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of

the non-applicants/respondents and states that she has no objection if the

application is allowed.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 20 days in

filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

LPA-630-2022 (O&M)

This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the order

dt.25.05.2022 passed in CWP-10929-2022.

The learned Single Judge had confirmed in the said judgment, orders

passed by respondent No.3 dt.26.02.2013 (P5) which was confirmed by

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050918-DB

LPA-630-2022 -2- 2023:PHHC:050918-DB

respondent No.2 vide order dt.06.08.2014 (P7) and by respondent No.1 vide order

dt.31.03.2022 (P9).

In the order dt.26.02.2013 (P5), respondent No.3 had merely remitted

the matter back for fresh consideration of the objections raised by the respondents

on the Naksha Bey and for preparation of a fresh Naksha Bey, having accepted the

contentions of the respondents that their objections were not properly considered

and costly land in the Naksha Bey, which is situated in Muana Safidon main road

was not given to all co-sharers but was given to only one party.

The main issue is as to "what is the appropriate mode of partition to

be adopted; and whether such mode has been correctly followed while preparing

the Naksha Bey"?

Thus on remand the issue is going to be reconsidered by the primary

authority, and no serious prejudice is caused to the appellant since the appellant as

well as the respondents would be heard and their respective contentions would be

considered on all aspects by the primary authority.

We therefore, agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that the

impugned orders do not require any interference. Therefore, this appeal is

dismissed. No costs.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO) JUDGE

(SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 13.04.2023 Vivek

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

2. Whether reportable? Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050918-DB

2 of 2