IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition 15335 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.10.2009 Maha Singh and ors …Petitioners Versus Collector, Sonepat and ors …Respondents Present: Mr SS Narula, Advocate for the petitioners. S.S. SARON, J. The writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 18.11.2008 (P5) passed by the learned Collector, Sonepat whereby the application filed by respondents-2 to 6 seeking redemption of the mortgage of land has been allowed. According to the petitioners, Sobha Singh mortgaged his agricultural land as detailed in para 2 of the petition situated in village Rathdhana, Tehsil and District Sonepat, with one Kale son of Bahadur for Rs 225/- in the year 1900. Said Kale sold his mortgagee rights to one Nathu, who sold the said rights to Neki, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Chattar Singh @ Chattre claiming to be an adopted son of Sobha Singh, on 18.8.1972, filed an application in the Court of Collector, Sonepat, for redemption of the said land. The Collector, in exercise of his powers under The Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act 1913 (Act – for short) issued notices to the successors-in-interest of the petitioners i.e. sons 1 CWP 15535 of 2009 and grandsons of Neki. It is alleged that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, the application filed by Chattar Singh @ Chattre was dismissed by the Collector, Sonepat, vide order dated 12.11.1974 (P2). Chattar Singh @ Chattre then approached the Civil Court for the relief of redemption of mortgage; however, his suit was dismissed by the Sub Judge IIIrd Class, Sonepat, vide judgment dated 22.1.1977 (P3). The appeal against the same was dismissed by the Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat on 1.4.1978 (P4). After the death of Chattar Singh @ Chattre, his 5 daughters (respondents-2 to 6) filed an application for redemption of mortgage in the court of Collector, Sonepat on 27.5.2008, which has been allowed by the impugned exparte order dated 18.11.2008 (P5). Mutation on the basis of the said order has also been sanctioned by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 11.2.2009 (P6). After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 18.11.2008 (P5) passed by the Collector would be an order in terms of Section 8 of the Act whereby the petitioners, who claim to be the mortgages in the suit land, have been ordered to be evicted. The petitioners’ were proceeded against exparte on 27.10.2008 in the proceedings which culminated in the passing of the order dated 18.11.2008 (P5). Therefore, in terms of Section 12 of the Act, the petitioners may seek setting aside of the exparte orders. Section 12 of the Act reads as under:- “12. Saving of suits to establish rights. – Any party aggrieved by an order made under Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 of this Act may institute a suit to establish his rights in respect of the 2 CWP 15535 of 2009 mortgage, but subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive. Setting aside exparte orders or orders of dismissal. – Notwithstanding anything in this Section a mortgagee against whom an exparte order under Section 7 has been made or a petitioner, whose petition has been dismissed in default under Section 6 may apply to the Collector to have such order of dismissal set aside, and the Collector may in his discretion set aside, such order of dismissal on such terms as to costs or otherwise as he may deem fit; provided that the order of dismissal shall not be set aside unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.” A perusal of the above shows that any party aggrieved by an order under Sections 6, 7, 8,, 9, 10 or 11 of the Act may institute a suit to establish his rights in respect of the mortgage, but subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive. Therefore, the petitioners, admittedly have a right to establish their rights in respect of the mortgage in terms of Section 12 of the Act. Besides, the said Section also provides for setting aside the exparte order of dismissal. Therefore, the petitioners having a right under Section 12 of the Act are to enforce their rights by instituting a civil Suit or seek the setting aside of the exparte proceedings that were ordered on 27.10.2008 by mentioning the reasons for their non- appearance. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not to embark upon an inquiry with regard to the claims inter se the parties which may be disputed or go into the question of their non-appearance before the Collector, Sonepat. Therefore, 3 CWP 15535 of 2009 the petitioners, if aggrieved against the order dated 18.11.2008 (P5) are relegated to the remedy of filing a civil suit under Section 12 of the Act or seek the setting aside of the exparte proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. 20.10.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 4