CWP No.22784/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 21.12.2010 Ved Parkash Kathuria ...Petitioner VERSUS HUDA and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.RM Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner has challenged the order of resumption dated 12.2.2001 (Annexure P-2) as also the order dated 24.4.2001 (Annexure P- 4) passed by the Appellate Authority in the present writ petition. It is admitted position that the petitioner has challenged the order of resumption in Civil Court. The civil suit filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.2006. An appeal preferred therefrom also resulted into dismissal vide judgment and decree dated 9.8.2007 passed by the lower appellate Court. Regular Second Appeal No.782 of 2008 was also dismissed on 17.3.2010 by this Court. It is relevant to notice that the High Court while dismissing the appeal recorded a categoric finding that the resumption order has been passed by adopting due procedure, CWP No.22784/2010 2 though the High Court also held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The relevant paragraph of the judgment passed by the High Court is reproduced as under:- “From the aforesaid, it is apparent that due procedure was followed by the Estate Officer (defendant no.2) before passing the resumption order. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not deposit the balance amount of sale consideration after depositing initial amount of 25% of the same consideration. Consequently, defendant no.2 was left with no option, but to pass the impugned resumption order. Jurisdiction of civil court to challenge the resumption order is barred by Section 50 of the Act....” From the above, it appears that the judgment passed by the Civil Court is not only for want of jurisdiction, but also on the merits of the controversy. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is not maintainable. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this writ petition. Dismissed as withdrawn. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 21.12. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 3