Civil Writ Petition No.6281 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 27, 2009 Dalip Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.M.K.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the caveator. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of partition primarily on the ground that he was not given sufficient opportunity to be present at the time of hearing and decision having been given proceeding against him ex-parte. Respondent No.3 filed this Civil Writ Petition No.6281 of 2009 : 2 : application for partition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.7.2004. This application was restored on 3.8.2004 without issuing notice to the opposite side. Mode of partition was accordingly proposed on 9.9.2004 and case was adjourned to 26.10.2004 for objections and preparing Naksha Arra. It is at that stage that the petitioner learnt that ex-parte proceedings had been initiated against him. On his application, the ex-parte proceedings were set- aside on 4.11.2004 and the case was fixed for objections to Naksha Arra. Since the petitioner was not given sufficient time to file his objections, he filed an appeal against this order. During the pendency, Naksha Arra was passed. The appeal filed by the petitioner was subsequently accepted on 6.1.2005 and directions were issued to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Then the matter went back to the Assistant Collector. It was adjourned to 4.3.2005 for consideration and arguments. On that day, respondent No.3 filed an affidavit that he had already appealed before the Commissioner against the order which was passed in favour of the petitioner. The case was adjourned sine-die. On 29.5.2007, this petition filed by respondent No.3 was dismissed by the Commissioner. On 31.7.2007, the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2. Since the record had not been received, the case was adjourned on the understanding that parties would be summoned as and when the record was received. On 17.9.2007, Assistant Collector issued notice to the counsel for the petitioner for the same day, who appeared and prayed that the parties be served with notice. On 17.9.2007 only a notice was issued to the petitioner for 28.8.2007. This notice was corrected to read Civil Writ Petition No.6281 of 2009 : 3 : 28.9.2007. Since 28.9.2007 was holiday, the case was then taken up on 1.10.2007 when the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte. The petitioner challenged this order, but has remained un-successful. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that he had not been granted effective opportunity of hearing while passing the impugned order. The facts, as noticed above, would show that there is some infirmity in the service of notice on the petitioner. It appears that Assistant Collector was in hurry to decide and in that process he has not ensured that the petitioner was properly served. Cases are required to be decided after giving proper opportunity of hearing to ensure that the principles of natural justice are followed. Apparently, the said principle appears to have been violated. Though the notice is yet to be issued in this case, but Mr.R.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate has appeared for respondent No.3 by saying that he has filed a caveat petition. Though the caveat petition is not placed with the case, but the copy of the petition concededly has been supplied to the counsel. The counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3. He contends that the petitioner was properly served and all this is being stated just to delay the partition proceedings which are pending since 2.3.2004. The facts as noticed above would show that the petitioner was not effectively served. Notice issued to him was for 28.8.2007 which date had gone passed on the date this notice was issued. This date was corrected to 28.9.2007, but it is not clear if this was the date on notice to the petitioner. The case was then heard on 1.10.2007. It can, thus, be said that proper service was not effected on the petitioner. Instrument of partition has been issued while Civil Writ Petition No.6281 of 2009 : 4 : holding ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner. It would, thus, be proper to set-aside the orders and give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The case is remanded back to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector on 15.5.2009. If after hearing the parties and especially the petitioner, the Assistant Collector is of the view that no change is necessary in the order already passed,he may hold so. Otherwise, he will be at liberty to pass any fresh order in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. April 27, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE