The right to appeal under Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 must be read to provide for the right of appeal to any of the affected parties, including subsequent purchasers.

VIKAS BAHL, J.

CM No.16551-CWP of 2023

This is an application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading legal representative of respondent No.4-Kaka Singh (deceased).

For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and the legal representative of respondent No.4- Kaka Singh (deceased) as stated in para No.3 of the application is ordered to be brought on record subject to all just exceptions.

Amended memo of parties be taken on record.

CWP No.21593 of 2018 (O&M

1. This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.3 and also the order dated 03.07.2018 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner had filed an appeal i.e. Case No.7/Maintenance Misc/ADC which was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, Patiala vide order dated 14.08.2018 on the ground that the appeal is only maintainable on behalf of the senior citizen/parents under Section 16(1) of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'Act of 2007') and not by any other person.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the said order is in the teeth of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya vs The Union of India and another passed in CWP No.7282 of 2010 decided on 28.05.2014 and reported as 2016(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 146. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid judgment, it has been specifically observed that any affected party has a right to appeal under Section 16(1) of Act of 2007 and the petitioner, who is purchaser from respondent No.5 is also an aggrieved party and thus has a right to file an appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that judgment of the Division Bench was passed before passing of the impugned order dated 14.08.2018. It is prayed that the said order dated 14.08.2018 be set aside and the Appellate Tribunal be directed to re-decide the appeal of the petitioner under Section 16 of Act of 2007. It is also stated that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.08.2018 has stayed the operation of the impugned order(s) dated 22.02.2017 and 14.08.2018 and till the time the said appeal is decided, the interim order be directed to continue.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of LR of respondent No.4 submitted that grant of interim order should not be construed by the Appellate Tribunal as an expression on the merits of the case and the Appellate Tribunal be directed to decide the appeal after taking into consideration the points raised by both the parties in accordance with law.

6. Learned State counsel has no objection to the aforesaid course.

7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record.

8. The Division Bench of this Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya's case (supra) has held as under-

“33. Now coming to the conspectus of the discussion aforesaid, we have no doubt in our mind that we would be faced with the serious consequences of quashing such a provision which deprives the right of one party to the appeal remedy, while conferring it on the other especially in the context of the other provisions of the same Section as well as of the said Act. We have to avoid this. The only way to avoid it is to press into service both the principles of purposive interpretation and casus omissus. The Parliamentary discussions on the other provisions of the said Act do not convey any intent by which there is any intent of the Parliament to create such a differentiation. There is no point in repeating what we have said, but suffice to say that if nothing else, at least to give a meaning to the first proviso of Section 16(1) of the said Act,