LPA No.811 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. LPA No.811 of 2009 in CWP No.1796 of 2009 Date of decision: 4.9.2009 Balbir Singh and another ....Appellants vs. State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. --- Present: Mr.Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate, for the appellants. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral) During the course of advancing submissions in the instant Letters Patent Appeal, yet again the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the decision rendered by the various authorities which were subject matter of challenge at the hands of the appellants in Cwp No.1796 of 2009, were without jurisdiction. For this aspect of the issue, we only need to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in R.S.D.V.Finance Co.Pvt.Ltd vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2094. While dealing with the issue of jurisdiction the Apex Court held that three conditions were to be satisfied before a decision could be set aside on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The three conditions are being extracted hereunder:- “(i) That such objection was taken in the Court of First instance at the earliest possible opportunity; (ii) in all cases where, issues are settled then at or before such settlement of issues; (iii) there has been a consequent failure of justice.” LPA No.811 of 2009 2 Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that none of the three conditions are available to the appellant to favourably assail the impugned orders. In view of the authoritative determination rendered by the Apex Court on the aspect, we are satisfied that the claim raised by the appellants is clearly misconceived. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants also did not dispute, that the appellant had never contested the mode of partition determined by the revenue authorities.In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. In view of the fact that the instant appeal has been dismissed on merits, we find no justification in passing separate orders on the application for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. ( J.S.Khehar) Judge ( S.D.Anand ) Judge September 4, 2009 rk