The mandatory requirement of approving the mode of partition before proceeding further and the need for a liberal approach in condoning delay.

ORDER

Rupan Deol Bajaj, F.C. - The present is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 16.3.1998 passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala as well as the order dated 3.12.1992, passed by the A.C. Ist Grade, Amloh, in the matter of partition of land.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Paramjit Singh son of Gurnam Singh, resident of village Khanian, Tehsil Amloh, District Fathegarh Sahib made an application dated 21.8.1991 for partition of his 2/9th share out of 133K-1M of land comprised in the Khasra numbers mentioned in the application itself as per the Jamabandi for the year 1986-87. He further submitted that some of the land to be partitioned was situated near the road and which may also be partitioned. The A.C. Ist Grade, Amloh, after hearing the opposite parties, and recording their statements, prepared Mode of Partition on 12.10.1992 and ordered to prepare Naqsha "Ara. However, Jarnail Singh submitted an application dated 9.11.1992 before A.C. Ist Grade, Amloh that the order dated 12.10.1992 was not in accordance with law, because the mode of partition had not been approved before calling Naqsha "Ara. He submitted that only the mode of partition had been proposed and not approved yet while calling for Naqsha "Ara. He accordingly requested that the order dated 12.10.1992 be recalled and the proposed mode of partition be approved only after hearing the objections of all the parties. However, the A.C. Ist Grade, Amloh after hearing the parties through their counsel, rejected the application vide his order dated 3.12.1992 stating therein that Naqsha "Ara had been called only after having approved the mode of partition.

3. Aggrieved by the orders of the A.C. Ist Grade, Jarnail Singh and others filed an appeal before the Collector, Amloh, who after hearing the counsel for both the parties and going through the record, found that Naqsha "Ara had been ordered to be prepared by A.C. Ist Grade, Amloh without approving of the mode of partition. He, accordingly, agreed with the contentions of the counsel for the appellants and accepted the appeal vide his order dated 29.6.1993 and remanded the case to A.C. Ist Grade, Amloh with the directions that the mode of partition be approved first and only then the Naqsha "Ara called for in the partition proceedings and directed the parties to appear before him on 6.8.1993. Aggrieved by the orders of Collector Amloh, Paramjit Singh filed appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. The main plea taken by him was that the mode of partition has been challenged after the expiry of prescribed period of limitation, which was 15 days and the Collector had ignored the matter of limitation in his order. The Commissioner, after hearing the arguments of the counsel of both the parties and going through the record, found that the mode of partition was approved in the presence of respondent Jarnail Singh and, therefore, he had no right to challenge the mode of partition after the permissible period. He accepted the appeal on the ground of limitation and directed the A.C. Ist Grade to continue with the partition proceedings vide his order dated 16.3.1998.

4. Aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, Jarnail Singh and others filed the present revision in this Court. The arguments of counsel for the petitioner were heard on 20.10.2000. Gurnam Singh, respondent No. 4, who had been appearing in person throughout, stated that he had engaged one counsel Mr. Chopra Advocate, but he had not appeared and an adjournment may be given. It was found that no Power of Attorney has been filed by the said Advocate and, therefore, respondent No. 4 was directed to place on record written arguments through his lawyer and was given one month time for the same. On the next date of hearing i.e. 8.12.2000, the hearing could not take place as the Court time was over and the case was adjourned to 22.12.2000. However,