C.R. No. 7211 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7211 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 1.9.2009 Gurminder Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Amarjit Kaur & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 1.3.2007, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nawanshahr vide which the review petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.11.2001, was been ordered to be dismissed. The property in dispute originally belonged to one Milkha Singh, who was survived by his son namely Harbhajan Singh and two daughters namely Amarjit Kaur and Shaminder Kaur. The daughters of late Shri Milkha Singh filed a suit for declaration claiming 2/3rd share in the property on the plea of inheritance. The suit was contested by the petitioner through his attorney as C.R. No. 7211 of 2008 2 he is resident of England. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree through his attorney. The appeal was filed through Sh. A.S. Syan, Advocate. The power of attorney of the petitioner moved an application for withdrawal of the appeal by engaging Sh. S.P. Singh as Sh. A.S. Syan, Advocate refused to withdraw the appeal. On coming to know about the withdrawal of the appeal, the petitioner filed a review petition, which was also dismissed. The suit filed by the plaintiff / respondents was contested on the plea that it was the petitioner who was entitled to inherit the property under a registered Will executed by Sh. Milkh Singh. There is no necessity to go into the merits of the controversy, as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2, on instructions states that this revision be allowed and the order passed on the review application as well as order dismissing the appeal as withdrawn be set aside and the appeal be restored to its original number, to be decided on merit in accordance with law. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for respondents on instructions of respondents No.1 & 2, who are present in Court, this revision is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside, and the appeal filed by the petitioner is ordered to be restored to its original number for decision on merits. C.R. No. 7211 of 2008 3 Keeping in view the fact that the appeal is pending since 2001, the learned lower appellate Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the appeal and dispose it of preferably within six months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 1.9.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE