Ranjit Singh, J.:- Grievance of the petitioner is that Tehsildar, Sonepat, has conducted exparte proceedings in a partition case filed by respondent Nos.5 to 8. According to the petitioner, this is in utter violation of provisions of Section 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (for short, “the Act”).

2. In the partition proceedings filed by respondent No.5, the petitioner has been impleaded as second party No.2. Assistant Collector IInd Grade accepted Naksha Kha on 13.6.2000 on a statement made by respondent Nos.7 and 8 and second party No.1 and 3 to the effect that they were not interested in filing any objection against Naksha Kha. Petitioner has himself disclosed that he received summons from Civil Court, Sonepat, in October 2001 for leading additional evidence in civil suit titled Teka Vs. Gobind and from this he learnt that partition proceedings have been held in a clandestine manner at the instance of respondent Nos.5 to 8. The petitioner accordingly filed an appeal against orders dated 5.3.1999 and 13.6.2000 and for setting-aside exparte order dated 12.7.1999. Collector, however, dismissed this appeal on 6.10.2004, which was impugned by filing a revision before Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. The revision was also dismissed on 28.6.2006. The petitioner, thus, has filed the present writ petition to impugn orders Annexures P-2 to P-4 primarily on the ground that the orders are in violation of provisions of Section 20 of the Act.

3. Though the petitioner is complaining of exparte proceedings without effecting proper service on him, but his appeal was rejected on the ground of appeal being not maintainable as sanad taqsim had already been prepared. The appeal was also found time barred and no reasons were disclosed to explain the delay in filing the appeal.

4. The authorities have proceeded against the petitioner exparte on receipt of a report of refusal. The petitioner complains that Halqa Patwari and revenue officer being mixed up had managed this wrong report to proceed against the petitioner exparte. The petitioner claims that he was serving at Delhi and he used to leave at 6 A.M. in the morning to return at 9 P.M. The refusal as such, was wrong. The report of the Process Server was attested by Risal Singh, Chowkidar, which is also termed as wrong. It is in this background that prayer is made for setting-aside the Sanad Taqsim.

5. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents had pleaded that Sanad Taqsim had already been issued, against which no appeal was maintainable and only civil suit was the appropriate remedy. The petitioner was also not found to have explained reasons for delay in filing this appeal. The petitioner also could not show any document from record indicating that he had moved for setting-aside of exparte proceedings. In fact, the petitioner had filed an appeal, which was time barred, without explaining the delay in making his approach. Not only that, the revision filed by the petitioner was also badly time barred. The Commissioner, as such, declined to interfere on the ground that Sanad Taqsim has already been prepared on 12.7.2001 and final instrument of partition has also been drawn between the parties. The revision was also found to be time barred for which there is no explanation offered by the petitioner. The petitioners perhaps now are left with only remedy of filing a civil suit.

6. To say that while interfering with the exparte order, the court is not to adopt hyper-technical approach, the counsel has placed reliance on G.P.Srivastava Vs. R.K.Raizada & Ors.,, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1221. The Hon’ble Supreme court has observed in this case that where a party approached the Court immediately within the statutory time specified, the discretion is normally exercised in his favour, provided the absence was not malafide or intentional. Observation further is that if sufficient cause for non appearance is shown then exparte order deserves to be setaside. It is also observed that ev