Point of Law : High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 16.4.2022, passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, in Revision Petition No. 372 of 2008, titled Dharam Singh vs. Gian Singh and Others, whereby an application for extension of stay having been filed by the petitioners, came to be dismissed, petitioners have approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid impugned order and direct the authority to consider the application made by the petitioners for extension of stay during the pendency of the appeal.

2. Having regard to the nature of the order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this court sees no necessity to issue notice to the respondents because in the event of notices being issued to them, they would be unnecessarily compelled to engage lawyer to defend them in the case, which can be otherwise disposed of on the basis of material already available on record.

3. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that petitioners herein filed an application before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. for partition in land comprising khata No. 21, khatauni Nos. 49, 50 and 51, Kita-20, measuring 3-70-04 hectares, situate in Mohal and Mauza Sadwan, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. as per missal Hakiyat for the year, 1982-83. Vide impugned order dated 23.5.1992, learned Assistant Collector partitioned the land and the revenue entries were also incorporated according to this partition.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with partition order dated 23.5.1992, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed appeal bearing No. 06/2007 titled Dharam Singh vs. Gian Singh and Others, before the learned Collector, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. however afore appeal was dismissed vide order dated 4.6.2008, by the learned Collector, Nurpur. In the aforesaid background, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners approached the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, by way of filing revision petition bearing No. 372 of 2008. Learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala stayed the impugned order passed by the learned Collector. During the pendency of the aforesaid revision petition, petitioner Dharam Singh died and his LRs filed an application dated 24.1.2012 under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC (Annexure P2) praying therein for their impleadment. Though factum with regard to filing of the application was recorded by the learned Divisional Commissioner in its order dated 5.2.2013, but same was not considered on that date. In the meantime, respondent Gian Singh also expired and on 4.8.2017, an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC also came to be filed by his LRs for bringing them on record as LRs of the deceased.

5. On 28.2.2022, petitioners filed application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC, praying therein stay of the operation of order dated 4.6.2008, passed by the learned Collector, Nurpur in Appeal No. 6 of 2007 before the learned Divisional Commissioner (Annexure P-5). On 18.4.2022, the learned Divisional Commissioner allowed the application and stayed the order dated 4.6.2008, passed by the learned Collector, till the next date of hearing (Annexure P-6). On 16.4.2022, petitioners filed another application with a prayer to extend the interim order dated 28.2.2022 (Annexure P-7), however, learned Divisional Commissioner dismissed the same vide order dated 16.4.2022, on the ground that in the absence of the application to bring the LRs of Dharam Singh on record, it cannot be said that Sarwan Kumar is the Legal Heir of Dharam Singh S/o Kripa. Apart from above, learned Divisional Commissioner also recorded that neither prima-facie case is made out nor any balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-