IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

103 CM-7873-LPA-2025 in/and Date of Decision: 22.12.2025 Suresh Kumar ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. R.S.Chahal, Advocate for the appellant.

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

CM-7873-LPA-2025 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 19 days in filing the appeal.

Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

LPA-3163-2025

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 passed in CWP-11213-2025 by the learned Single Judge, by which, the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the partition proceedings, has been dismissed.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised a solitary argument before this Court that he was not served in accordance with law and the partition proceedings have been carried out at his back, which aspect has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge in the correct perspective and therefore, the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the partition proceedings may kindly be set aside.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

4. The argument that the appellant had not been served before the partition proceedings were decided, has been dealt by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order itself in para No.5 onwards.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant conceded that a power of attorney was given by the appellant to Ratti Ram (brother of appellant) for engaging a counsel and in the said proceedings, Ratti Ram who was also the respondent, appeared on behalf of the appellant as well on the basis of said authorization.

6. Once, the said power of attorney was given by the appellant and Ratti Ram appeared, and therefore, the contention of appellant that he could not contest the partition proceedings, is without any basis.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant further argues that the authority given to Ratti Ram has been misused by him to the disadvantage of the appellant, which has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge.

8. It may be noticed that the said contention has also been dealt with by the learned Single Judge to hold that once, appellant was of the view that the power of attorney given to Ratti Ram has been misused, still no action has been taken by the appellant against Ratti Ram stating that the said power of attorney has been misused. Neither police complaint nor other legal action has been taken by the appellant, which fact has been conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant even during the hearing of the present appeal. Hence, it cannot be said that the authority exercised by Ratti Ram on the basis of the Power of Attorney given to him by the appellant, was beyond his jurisdiction, in absence of any action taken by the appellant on the said aspect.

9. No other argument has been raised.

10. Keeping in view of the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)

JUDGE (VIKAS SURI)

December 22, 2025 JUDGE Varinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No