In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.13667 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:8.10.2009 Mohinder Singh .....Petitioner v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. P.K. Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 29.7.2009 (Annexure-P.6) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.1) and the order dated 13.3.2008 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (respondent No.2) in terms of which the order dated 29.8.2007 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the Collector, Sonepat has been set aside. The dispute in the case relates to the estate of Sher Singh who died on 17.7.1979. Sher Singh on his demise left behind his widow Smt. Risalo, two sons, namely, Mohinder Singh (petitioner) and Ram Chander (since deceased), besides, three daughters, namely, Smt. Parmeshwari, Smt. Chhoto and Smt. Chanderpati (since deceased) and now represented by her son Ranbir Singh. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Mohinder Singh (petitioner) filed two suits i.e. Civil Suit No.502 of 1988 and Civil C.W.P. No.13667 of 2009 [2] Suit No.503 of 1988. Civil Suit No.502 of 1988 was filed by Mohinder Singh (petitioner) against his mother Smt. Risalo and his sisters Parmeshwari, Chhoto and also Ranbir Singh son of his deceased sister Chanderpati. The said suit was for declaration to the effect that Mohinder Singh (petitioner) is owner in possession of 2/3 share of land measuring 32 Kanals 4 Marlas as detailed in the plaint in the area of Village Murthal, Tehsil and District Sonepat. The defendants in the said suit that is Smt. Risalo, Parmeshwari, Smt. Chhoto and Ranbir Singh son of Smt. Chanderpati did not contest and admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Accordingly, Civil Suit No.502 of 1988 was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 16.7.1988. The second suit No.503 of 1988 was filed by the petitioner Mohinder Singh along with his brother Ram Chander. The same was for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs i.e. Mohinder Singh (petitioner) and his brother Ram Chander are owners in possession in equal share of 2/3 share of land measuring 158 Kanals 13 Marlas situated in Village Murthal, Tehsil and District Sonepat as detailed in the plaint. According to the learned counsel, the mother of the plaintiffs, namely, Smt. Risalo and their sisters, Parmeshwari and Smt. Chhoto as also their sister's son, namely, Ranbir Singh son of Smt. Chanderpati had consented to transfer of their land measuring 32 Kanals 4 Marlas in favour of the petitioner Mohinder Singh in an oral family settlement. It was on the said basis that Mohinder Singh (petitioner) filed Civil Suit No.502 of 1988 claiming ownership and possession of 2/3 share of land measuring 32 Kanals 4 Marlas which has been decreed in favour of the petitioner on 16.7.1988. The second suit i.e. Civil Suit No.503 of 1988 was also decreed C.W.P. No.13667 of 2009 [3] in favour of the petitioner Mohinder Singh and his brother Ram Chander on 16.7.1988. However, land measuring 32 Kanals 4 Marlas which was subject matter of Civil Suit No.502 of 1988 was also included in Civil Suit No.503 of 1988. In fact, the said land was not liable to be included in Civil Suit No.503 of 1988. However, due to the illiteracy of the petitioner, it is submitted that he was cheated by his brother Ram Chander. The petitioner Mohinder Singh then filed a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief for permanent injunction seeking setting aside of the decree dated 16.7.1988 passed in Civil Suit No.503 of 1988. The said suit of the petitioner Mohinder Singh was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.1995. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the District Judge, Sonepat which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 5.2.1998. Against the same RSA No.739 of 1998 has been filed in this Court. The said appeal has been admitted. Therefore, it is contended that partition proceedings on the basis of civil suit decree passed in Civil Suit No.503 of 1988 are liable to be stayed till the said RSA is disposed of. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the Collector, Sonepat vide order dated 29.8.2007 (Annexure-P.4) had stayed the partition proceedings till the disposal of the RSA by this Court. However, in appeal the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (respondent No.2) vide order dated 13.3.2008 (Annexure- P.5) set aside the said order of the Collector. It was noticed that the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the decree passed in Civil Suit No.503 of 1988 which was dismissed by the trial Court on 31.3.1995. His appeal was also C.W.P. No.13667 of 2009 [4] dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 5.2.1998. Against the said judgment and decree, RSA No.739 of 1988 has been filed but there is no stay granted by this Court in the said RSA. It was noticed that mutation of the land has been sanctioned on the basis of the decree passed in Civil Suit No.503 of 1988. Besides, it was also noticed that the petitioner was also allowed to raise objections against `Naksha Bey'. It was observed that question of title was to be raised before `Naksha Alaf' i.e. mode of partition. Accordingly, the order dated 29.8.2007 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the Collector, Sonepat was set aside. The revision petition of the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 29.7.2009 (Annexure-P.6). It may be noticed that the petitioner himself was a party in both the suits i.e. Civil Suit No.502 of 1988 and Civil Suit No.503 of 1988. However, the question as to whether the land measuring 32 Kanals 4 Marlas which was subject matter of Suit No.502 of 1988 was inadvertently included in Civil Suit No.503 of 1988 is to be considered and gone into in the RSA that is pending in this Court. The challenge of the petitioner to the said decree passed in Civil Suit No.503 1988 has been negatived by the Sub Judge Second Class, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 5.2.1998. There is no stay granted in the RSA that is pending in this Court. The partition proceedings, therefore, are to continue and finalized in terms of the entries in the revenue records which have been entered on the basis of the decree of the civil Court passed in Civil Suit No.503 of 1988. The same are not liable to be stayed merely because the Regular Second Appeal is pending in which there is no stay. Accordingly, no ground is made out for interference with the order C.W.P. No.13667 of 2009 [5] dated 13.3.2008 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (respondent No.2) and the order dated 29.7.2009 (Annexure-P.6) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.1). However, the partition proceedings that are to be carried out would be subject to the outcome of the decision in RSA No.739 of 1998. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. October 8, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No