JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed further in pursuance of final order of partition dated 15.02.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.4- Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Gurdaspur in partition application filed by respondent No.5 bearing No.47/T dated 24.08.2017/33/NT dated 29.04.2019 titled as "Jeevan Verma v. Balwant Kaur etc.".

2. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has raised a preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability of the present writ petition and has submitted that against the order dated 15.02.2021 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner has filed an appeal before the SDM-cum-Collector, Gurdaspur and the said appeal is pending and is now listed for 24.03.2023. It is further submitted that subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition, revision petition bearing No.ROR No.829 of 2022 has also been filed before the Financial Commissioner, which is also stated to be pending. It is stated that as per instructions, no stay has been granted in the said revision petition and the petitioner, has thus, initiated multiple litigation challenging the same order dated 15.02.2021 which is not permissible in law. It is contended that in the present case, sanad takseem has been prepared on 02.04.2021 and thus, appropriate remedy is to file a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. In support of the same, he has relied upon the judgment titled as Ram Gopal v. State of Haryana and others, reported as 2009 (11) RCR (Civil) 336, in which, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had observed that the petitioner, at the first instance, after preparation of sanad takseem should approach the Financial Commissioner by way of filing a revision.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that an appeal against the order dated 15.02.2021 as well as revision before the Financial Commissioner against the same order dated 15.02.2021 have been filed but has submitted that in the present case, respondent No.5 has filed an application for partition on 24.08.2017 and had arrayed Gurnam Singh, father of the petitioner, as respondent No.11 although, Gurnam Singh had died on 23.07.2017 and thus, proceedings against the father of the petitioner which had been continued ex parte, were illegal. It is submitted that since, the petitioner has a good arguable case on merits thus, the present writ petition is maintainable. It is also submitted that respondent No.5 has played fraud by impleading a dead person as respondent No.11 and thus, the petitioner deserves to be granted interim relief till the time the Financial Commissioner does not decide the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.02.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however, fairly submitted that although before the Financial Commissioner, the petitioner had moved an application for stay and counsel had pressed for stay but no stay was granted by the Financial Commissioner, even though, there is no specific order of rejection of stay.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.5, in rebuttal, has submitted that an application for partition was filed on the basis of jamabandi for the year 2014-15 which was the relevant jamabandi at the time of filing of the application for partition and all the persons who were mentioned in the jamabandi were made party and since, respondent No.11-Gurnam Singh was also shown as a co-sharer in the said jamabandi thus, he was also impleaded as party. I