JAGJIT SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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 Vs. Munshilal and another 1981 AIR (SC) 1400 and judgment of this Court in case of Karam Pal Vs. Ramesh Jain 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 613 . On the other hand counsel for the respondents 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.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. In the case of Rafiz and another (supra), it has been held that:-