Jagtar Singh Vs. the Chief Settlement Commissioner and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Himachal Pradesh High Court |
| Nov-17-2006 |
| V.K. Gupta, C.J. |
| 2006(3)ShimLC1 |
| Jagtar Singh |
| The Chief Settlement Commissioner and ors. |
| Appeal dismissed |
.....no. 5/1908]. order 14, rule 2 [as amended by amending act of 1976]: [v.k. gupta, cj, deepak gupta & surjit singh, jj] preliminary issue of law and fact court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of court held, except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of rule 2 of order 14 where a court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. this course of action is not available to a court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. sub-rule (1) clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have..........clearly lays down that the repeal shall not affect any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any right, privilege etc. which might have accrued under the repealed enactment. such being the clear position of law, the revision petition filed by the petitioner did not merit disposal on the aforesaid technical ground the order thus suffers from a patent error of law apparent on the face? of the order and is liable to be set aside.4. the impugned order is thus set aside.because by the impugned order the revision petition was disposed of only on the aforesaid uncalled for legal and technical ground, it is ordered, that the revision petition shall stand restored and revived to its original position. the revision petition is remitted to the learned financial commissioner (appeals) for its disposal afresh in accordance with law.the petition is disposed of.cmp no. 284 of 2006in view of the disposal of the main petition, this application is also disposed of. interim order dated 23rd june, 2006 shall stand vacated.
V.K. Gupta, C.J.
1. Vide order dated 14th September, 2006, respondents No. 4 to 8 were set ex-parte.
2. Vide the impugned order dated 13th April, 2006, the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) summarily disposed of Revenue Revision No. 96 of 2001 only on the ground that since the aforesaid revision petition had been filed under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Central Act No. 44/1954) and because the said Act had been repealed by the Displaced Persons Claims and other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 (Central Act No. 38/2005) and since there was no saving Clause in the aforesaid repealing Act, the revision petition was not maintainable.
3. Apparently, the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) was not aware of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act No. 10 of 1897) which very clearly stipulates and lays down that despite repeal of any Central Act, such repeal shall not affect the previous operation of any enactment repealed, or anything duly done or suffered thereunder nor such repeal shall affect any right acquired etc. under the repealed enactment etc. etc. Clause (e) of Section 6 also clearly lays down that the repeal shall not affect any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any right, privilege etc. which might have accrued under the repealed enactment. Such being the clear position of law, the revision petition filed by the petitioner did not merit disposal on the aforesaid technical ground The order thus suffers from a patent error of law apparent on the face? of the order and is liable to be set aside.
4. The impugned order is thus set aside.
Because by the impugned order the revision petition was disposed of only on the aforesaid uncalled for legal and technical ground, it is ordered, that the revision petition shall stand restored and revived to its original position. The revision petition is remitted to the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) for its disposal afresh in accordance with law.
The petition is disposed of.
CMP No. 284 of 2006
In view of the disposal of the main petition, this application is also disposed of. Interim order dated 23rd June, 2006 shall stand vacated.