FALWINDER SINGH Vs. MASSA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S .R. Bunger, FC. - The present case has been reported by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, Shri N.K. Arora, IAS, under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 with his opinion, that the present revision petition be accepted and the order of the Collector dated 30.10.1987 and that of A.C. 1st Grade, Amritsar dated 27.1.1987 be set aside and the case be remanded to A.C. 1st Grade, Amritsar for initiating fresh partition proceedings, after hearing both the parties, as per his reference dated 6.2.1990.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that on an application for partition of joint land made by the respondent-Massa Singh, to the Tehsildar-cum- A.C. 1st Grade, Amritsar in the year 1980, the partition of land measuring 162 Kanals- 16 Marlas, situated at Village Bal Khurd, Tehsil and Distt. Amritsar was ordered, as per the order of the A.C. 1st Grade dated 27.1.1987. During the pendency of the partition proceedings before the A.C. 1st Grade, Atma Singh a share-holder in this joint land, and father of the present petitioners had died on 22.11.1984. After his death, partition proceedings continued and his L.Rs. were not brought on the record. After the case was decided by the A.C. 1st Grade, the petitioners Falwinder Singh etc. filed an appeal on 24.9.1987, before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Amritsar, which was rejected as per his order dated 30.10.1987, by treating this appeal as hopelessly time barred. Against this order of the Collector Falwinder Singh etc. filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, who in the present case has made the aforesaid recommendation.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard. After perusal of the record and careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the present reference has no merit and the same deserves to be rejected. The order of the A.C. 1st Grade dated 27.1.1987, is perfectly in order and does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, which may call for interference at this level. Against the order of the A.C. 1st Grade, the appeal filed before the Collector, Amritsar was also rightly rejected being time barred because the present petitioners had shown utter negligence in filing the appeal before the Collector and they had also failed to explain the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The recommendation made by the learned Commissioner is also without any merit because the learned Commissioner has not quoted any provision of law, under which the order passed by the A.C. 1st Grade, Amritsar needs to be reversed or modified. Under Order 22, rule 10-A of the Civil Procedure Code-''it is duty of pleader to communicate to court, death of a party whenever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of that party, he shall inform the court about, it and the court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party, and, for this purpose, the contract between the pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist.'' In this case, it may be true, that, Atma Singh had died on 22.11.1984 and thereafter, partition proceedings continued before the A.C. 1st Grade till 27.1.1987; but if, L.Rs. of deceased Atma Singh were not brought on record, then either the pleader representing Atma Singh is to be blamed, or the L.Rs. of Atma Singh are to be blamed. The pleader should have known his duty to inform the court about the death of Atma singh, but the pleader failed to do so, and, thus, failed to discharge his legal duty. The petitioners should have known that their father was engaged in a litigation since 1980 and after the death of their father, they should have come forward and claimed themselves as L.Rs. before the A.C. 1st Grade. Since the petitioners themselves failed to discharge their duties and functions only they were responsible for the inconvenient outcome, if any. However, their lapse and negligence has not caused any dent on the merits of the case decided by the A.C. 1st Grade, Amritsar because the advocate, engaged by their father, throughout represented him. Moreover, the share-holder Atma Singh, has been given his due share after the partition of land by the A.C. 1st Grade; the Collector had rightly rejected the appeal being badly barred by time. The orders of both these Revenue Officers below do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, which may call for interference at my level.