RSA-775-2014 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 231 Sucha Singh and others Chaman Lal CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. judgments and decrees of both the declaration filed by the appellant described in the plaint is jointly owned and possessed the other co 2. of respondent No. 2 and submits Vakalatnama, which is taken on record Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the present second appeal is no Consolidation Officers. It is pointed out that the the respondents in consolidation proceedings as given to Consolidation Authorities which was allowed and deficiency was made good vide orders dated 18.08.1992 and against the orders of the Consolidation Authori 2014 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Date of Decision: 1 Sucha Singh and others Versus Chaman Lal and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA None for the appellants. Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate for respondent No. 2. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the co judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby declaration filed by the appellant-plaintiff to the effect that the suit land as described in the plaint is jointly owned and possessed the other co-sharers, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 and submits Vakalatnama, which is taken on record Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the present second appeal is not maintainable as the same is against the orders passed by the Consolidation Officers. It is pointed out that the the respondents in consolidation proceedings as given to them. Respondents had made an application before the Consolidation Authorities which was allowed and deficiency was made good vide orders dated 18.08.1992 and 20.10.1995 against the orders of the Consolidation Authori IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-775-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 .… Appellants .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Munish Jolly, Advocate for respondent No. 2. plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent Courts below whereby suit for plaintiff to the effect that the suit land as described in the plaint is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and een dismissed by both the Courts below. Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 and submits Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the present second t maintainable as the same is against the orders passed by the Consolidation Officers. It is pointed out that the suit land was received by the respondents in consolidation proceedings as, certain less land was . Respondents had made an application before the Consolidation Authorities which was allowed and deficiency was made 20.10.1995. It is submitted that against the orders of the Consolidation Authorities, civil suit is not urrent suit for plaintiff to the effect that the suit land as by the plaintiffs and Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf . Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the present second t maintainable as the same is against the orders passed by the received by less land was . Respondents had made an application before the Consolidation Authorities which was allowed and deficiency was made . It is submitted that ot RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.22 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-775-2014 (O&M) maintainable, as per law laid down by this Court in Joginder Pal vs. Sat Pal, 2010 Civil Court Cases 737 (P&H 3. 4. the year 2014 and on the first 03 dates of hearing i.e. 02.03.2015 and 04.08.2015, the appeal was adjourned either at the request of learned counsel for the appellants or on accoun behalf of the appellants. On 15.02.2016, when this case was listed for hearing, following order was passed by the Predecessor Bench of this Court:- 5. the present appeal was listed for preliminary hearing vide order dated 09.11.2016; and finally, notice of motion vide order dated 08.12.2016. On the last date of he fresh notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents. Today, again the appellants have gone un called twice. 6. learned counsel fo as per the evidence on record, the plaintiffs have been unable to make out as to how they have acquired the rights over the suit land. Even nothing 2014 (O&M) -2- maintainable, as per law laid down by this Court in Joginder Pal vs. Sat Pal, 2010 Civil Court Cases 737 (P&H Heard. Perusal of the order-sheets reveals that the matter pertains to the year 2014 and on the first 03 dates of hearing i.e. 02.03.2015 and 04.08.2015, the appeal was adjourned either at the request of learned counsel for the appellants or on accoun behalf of the appellants. On 15.02.2016, when this case was listed for hearing, following order was passed by the Predecessor Bench of this “The learned arguing counsel is stated to be in personal difficulty. Even on the last two dates none has caused representation. It appears that the learned counsel has lost interest in the matter. Adjourned sine die. The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant.” Subsequently, upon an application moved by the appellants, the present appeal was listed for preliminary hearing vide order dated 09.11.2016; and finally, notice of motion in the present appeal vide order dated 08.12.2016. On the last date of he fresh notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents. Today, again the appellants have gone un-represented despite the case having been called twice. Moreover, besides the afore learned counsel for respondent No. 2, it is found by the Courts below that as per the evidence on record, the plaintiffs have been unable to make out as to how they have acquired the rights over the suit land. Even nothing maintainable, as per law laid down by this Court in Joginder Nath @ Joginder Pal vs. Sat Pal, 2010 Civil Court Cases 737 (P&H). sheets reveals that the matter pertains to the year 2014 and on the first 03 dates of hearing i.e. 19.05.2014, 02.03.2015 and 04.08.2015, the appeal was adjourned either at the request of learned counsel for the appellants or on account of non-appearance on behalf of the appellants. On 15.02.2016, when this case was listed for hearing, following order was passed by the Predecessor Bench of this “The learned arguing counsel is stated to be in st two dates none has caused It appears that the learned counsel has lost interest in The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to Subsequently, upon an application moved by the appellants, the present appeal was listed for preliminary hearing vide order dated in the present appeal was issued vide order dated 08.12.2016. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 19.03.2025, fresh notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents. Today, again represented despite the case having been Moreover, besides the afore-noted submissions made by r respondent No. 2, it is found by the Courts below that as per the evidence on record, the plaintiffs have been unable to make out as to how they have acquired the rights over the suit land. Even nothing Joginder Nath @ sheets reveals that the matter pertains to 19.05.2014, 02.03.2015 and 04.08.2015, the appeal was adjourned either at the request appearance on behalf of the appellants. On 15.02.2016, when this case was listed for hearing, following order was passed by the Predecessor Bench of this “The learned arguing counsel is stated to be in st two dates none has caused It appears that the learned counsel has lost interest in The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to Subsequently, upon an application moved by the appellants, the present appeal was listed for preliminary hearing vide order dated was issued aring, i.e. 19.03.2025, fresh notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents. Today, again represented despite the case having been made by r respondent No. 2, it is found by the Courts below that as per the evidence on record, the plaintiffs have been unable to make out as to how they have acquired the rights over the suit land. Even nothing RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.22 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-775-2014 (O&M) has been stated by the plaintiffs with regard to th suit land. During cross stance from that in the plaint and had deposed that the suit land is a common land of the villagers. If that is so, in any event jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. Relevant, para No. 10 of the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2013, passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, reads as follows:- 2014 (O&M) -3- has been stated by the plaintiffs with regard to th suit land. During cross-examination, the plaintiff(s) had taken a different stance from that in the plaint and had deposed that the suit land is a common land of the villagers. If that is so, in any event jurisdiction of the ourt is barred. Relevant, para No. 10 of the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2013, passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, reads as “10. The record, after hearing arguments with regard to the grounds of appeal as per rival oral as well as documentary evidence referred above has been perused as per law discussed in Joginder Nath alias Joginder Pal VS. Sat Pal, 2010 Civil Court Cases 734, (P&H) as under;- East Punjab holdings (consoli fragmentation) Act, 1948, Sections 42,44, bar of civil court jurisdiction, change of consolidation scheme without impleading and without notice to the affected parties in violation of mandatory provision of provision to S42, whenev justice are violated, the order becomes nullity and civil court gets jurisdiction irrespective of the bar. East Punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) Act, 1948, Ss 42,44, East Punjab holdings (consolidatio fragmentation)Act, 1949, rule 18, delay application under section 42 of the act to be made within six months of the date of order against which it is filed, under the second proviso to rule 18 competent authority may admit the application after prescribed period of limitation if the applicant satisfies the competent authority that he had sufficient cause for not making application within the limitation period, applicant posted within the district concerned frequently visiting his village, everyone having knowledge of consolidation proceedings, order not passed by competent authority holding that there was sufficient cause for making the application after long delay of 25 years, application allowed merely observing that there is sufficient substance in the grievance of applicant thereby depriving the bonafide purchaser of the property purchased by them after more than 25 years, order by authority cannot be sustained and rightly set aside, appeal dismissed. has been stated by the plaintiffs with regard to their possession over the examination, the plaintiff(s) had taken a different stance from that in the plaint and had deposed that the suit land is a common land of the villagers. If that is so, in any event jurisdiction of the ourt is barred. Relevant, para No. 10 of the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2013, passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, reads as The record, after hearing arguments with regard to the appeal as per rival oral as well as documentary evidence referred above has been perused as per law Joginder Nath alias Joginder Pal VS. Sat Pal, 2010 Civil Court Cases 734, (P&H) vide which it was held East Punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) Act, 1948, Sections 42,44, bar of civil court jurisdiction, change of consolidation scheme without impleading and without notice to the affected parties in violation of mandatory provision of provision to S42, whenever principles of natural justice are violated, the order becomes nullity and civil court gets jurisdiction irrespective of the bar. East Punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of Act, 1948, Ss 42,44, East Punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation)Act, 1949, rule 18, delay- condonation, application under section 42 of the act to be made within six months of the date of order against which it is filed, under the second proviso to rule 18 competent the application after prescribed period of limitation if the applicant satisfies the competent authority that he had sufficient cause for not making application within the limitation period, applicant posted within the district concerned ng his village, everyone having knowledge of consolidation proceedings, order not passed by competent authority holding that there was sufficient cause for making the application after long delay of 25 years, application allowed merely is sufficient substance in the grievance of applicant thereby depriving the bonafide purchaser of the property purchased by them after more than 25 years, order by authority cannot be sustained and rightly set aside, appeal dismissed. eir possession over the examination, the plaintiff(s) had taken a different stance from that in the plaint and had deposed that the suit land is a common land of the villagers. If that is so, in any event jurisdiction of the ourt is barred. Relevant, para No. 10 of the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2013, passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, reads as The record, after hearing arguments with regard to the appeal as per rival oral as well as documentary evidence referred above has been perused as per law Joginder Nath alias Joginder Pal VS. Sat Pal, vide which it was held dation and prevention of fragmentation) Act, 1948, Sections 42,44, bar of civil court jurisdiction, change of consolidation scheme without impleading and without notice to the affected parties in violation of mandatory provision of er principles of natural justice are violated, the order becomes nullity and civil East Punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of Act, 1948, Ss 42,44, East Punjab n and prevention of condonation, application under section 42 of the act to be made within six months of the date of order against which it is filed, under the second proviso to rule 18 competent the application after prescribed period of limitation if the applicant satisfies the competent authority that he had sufficient cause for not making application within the limitation period, applicant posted within the district concerned ng his village, everyone having knowledge of consolidation proceedings, order not passed by competent authority holding that there was sufficient cause for making the application after long delay of 25 years, application allowed merely is sufficient substance in the grievance of applicant thereby depriving the bonafide purchaser of the property purchased by them after more than 25 years, order by authority cannot be RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.22 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-775-2014 (O&M) 7. stands disposed of is granted to the appellants to revive the instant Regular Second Appeal, within a period of 04 weeks from today. 8. 17.09.2025 rishu 2014 (O&M) -4- relied upon by learned counsel for the contesting appellants/plaintiffs during the course of arguments and it is found that in facts of referred citation are not exactly identical to those of the case in hand but the spirit of law discussed in the referred citation is helpfu to whether the issues no.1&2 were rightly decided by the learned trial court against the appellants/plaintiffs the purpose of which it has become imperative to go through the testimonial version of PW1 Kulwant Singh appellant/plaintiff no.2 and the documents referred above by the appellants/plaintiffs as well as testimonial version of DW1 Naresh Kumar son of the respondent/defendant Battan Singh since deceased and the documents referred above. Thus, keeping in view the above facts disposed of. However, in case, any cause of action survives, liberty is granted to the appellants to revive the instant Regular Second Appeal, within a period of 04 weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. .09.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable ned counsel for the contesting appellants/plaintiffs during the course of arguments and it is found that in facts of referred citation are not exactly identical to those of the case in hand but the spirit of law discussed in the referred citation is helpful for concluding as 2 were rightly decided by the learned trial court against the appellants/plaintiffs or not, for it has become imperative to go through the testimonial version of PW1 Kulwant Singh t/plaintiff no.2 and the documents referred above by the appellants/plaintiffs as well as testimonial version of DW1 Naresh Kumar son of the respondent/defendant Battan Singh since deceased and the documents referred above.” above facts, the present appeal However, in case, any cause of action survives, liberty is granted to the appellants to revive the instant Regular Second Appeal, , shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No ned counsel for the contesting appellants/plaintiffs during the course of arguments and it is found that in facts of referred citation are not exactly identical to those of the case in hand but the spirit of law l for concluding as 2 were rightly decided by the or not, for it has become imperative to go through the testimonial version of PW1 Kulwant Singh t/plaintiff no.2 and the documents referred above by the appellants/plaintiffs as well as testimonial version of DW1 Naresh Kumar son of the respondent/defendant Battan , the present appeal However, in case, any cause of action survives, liberty is granted to the appellants to revive the instant Regular Second Appeal, RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.22 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.