SH JASWANT SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE GOVT OF HARYANA
LAWS(P&H)-1994-10-7
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on October 28,1994

SH JASWANT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE GOVT OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.P.KURDUKA J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated August 20, 1993 Annexure P/2, passed by the learned Commissioner in E. R. No. 178 of July 20, 1993. The learned Commissioner granted ex-parte stay order which vitally affected the rights of the present petitioners. On receipt of the notice of stay, the petitioners appeared before the Commissioner and requested him to vacate the stay order granted on August 20, 1993. The Commissioner after hearing the parties vide his order dated March 17, 1994, Annexure P/3, passed a referring order and it reads thus : "the learned F. C. R. is requested to decide the case at the earliest so that the redemption money already deposited by the respondent does not go waste.
(2.) IT is unnecessary to set out the facts exhaustively in the order because admittedly, the Commissioner in his order dated August 20, 1993, Annexure P/2 was aware of the legal position that no appeal or revision was permissible under the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913, (hereinafter called the Act) before the Commissioner. The finding reads thus : "as per legal situation, there is no appeal or revision permissible under the redemption of Mortgage Act and at the level of this court and the parties have to go to civil Court Under Section 12 of the said Act. Mrs. Rathore, appearing in support of this petition, urged that the learned Commissioner after having held that no appeal or revision was maintainable under the Act should not have issued the stay order dated August 20, 1993, Annexure P/2. The order dated August 20, 1993, Annexure P/2, is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. She further urged that once it is held that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal or a revision under the Act, then the order dated March 17, 1994 Annexure P/3, although made by the Commissioner after hearing both the sides, is unsustainable.
(3.) MR . Ramesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, however, urged that the impugned order being discretionary order, no interference is called for.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.