Judgment:
LPA No.1239 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1239 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision :
20. 12.2012 Pritam Kaur ....Appellant VERSUS Markfed and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.J.S.Brar, Advocate, for Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, for the appellant.
******* RAJIVE BHALLA, J.
The appellant prays that order dated 26.07.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing her writ petition, may be set aside.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the order of partition is illegal and void as the appellant, who is a co-sharer, alongwith her son, respondent No.2, was not impleaded as a party.
The appellant's son and respondent No.1 connived and deprived the appellant of her property.
A dispute arose between the appellant's husband and Markfed.
The dispute was referred to an Arbitrator.
The Arbitrator pronounced his award against the appellant's husband.
The appellant alleges that as Markfed was the only bidder, the auction was illegal.
The subsequent partition, between Markfed and her son, is vitiated for collusion, fraud and failure to implead her as a party.
We have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order as well as the paper book.
An award dated 13.11.1985 LPA No.1239 of 2012 -2- for Rs.7,06,839/- with interest @ 18 p.a.w.e.f.09.06.1985 was pronounced against M/s Navraj Rice Mills, Nawanshahar, District Jalandhar, owned by the appellant's husband.
The award was made a rule of court and in execution proceedings, land measuring 43 kanals and 1 marla was attached.
Respondent No.1 was granted permission to participate in the auction, and was declared the successful bidder on 12.01.2004.
A sale certificate was issued to respondent No.1 followed by sanction of a mutation in its favour.
As respondent No.1 became a co-sharer, it filed an application for partition against Navrang Singh, son of the appellant.
Navrang Singh filed a civil suit, challenging the mutation.
The civil suit is still pending.
A daughter of the appellant contested partition proceedings by filing an application before the Assistant Collector that a question of title is involved.
The application was rejected on 14.03.2006.
The appeal was dismissed on 28.01.2007.
Navrang Singh also challenged these proceedings by way of appeals which were also dismissed.
The appellant, who is, admittedly, mother of Navrang Singh, filed the writ petition, without disclosing these facts, challenging the auction and partition proceedings on the ground that as she is a co-sharer, she should have been impleaded as a party.
It would be appropriate to mention that the appellant is not recorded as the Co.sharer in the revenue record.
A relevant extract from the order dismissing the writ petition, reads as follows: - “Without disclosing all these facts, as disclosed by respondent No.1, the petitioner has approached this Court and obtained the order of status-quo.
The factual position and the legal position that will emerge would show a clear efforts on the part of the petitioner to LPA No.1239 of 2012 -3- obtain this order by misleading.
The petitioner appears to have purposely withheld these facts and has abused the process of law.
This conduct of the petitioner is likely not appreciated.
I am not saying anything further having regard to the old age of the petitioner.
Respondent No.1 being a successful bidder, has acquired the property.
The partition, which was hotly contested and suit filed, which is still pending before the Civil Court, ought to have been disclosed by the petitioner.
In order to avoid this disclosure, the petitioner apparently has adopted a smart move to say that she is not being looked after by her son and is living separately.
To me, it will sound an attempt by her son by firing from shoulder of his mother.
While dismissing the writ petition, I would only express a word of caution that such thing do not pay in the long run either for a party or counsel.”
A perusal of the above extract leaves no manner of doubt that appellant has been set up by her son and daughter to nullify partition and auction proceedings that have attained finality and have been implemented.
Even otherwise, civil suits are also pending adjudication.
In this view of the matter, we find no reason to entertain the appeal.
Dismissed.
[ RAJIVE BHALLA ].JUDGE 20 12.2012 [ REKHA MITTAL ].shamsher JUDGE