IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.04.2026 Balwinder Kaur ....Petitioner Vs.

Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Mr. Naresh Chander, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral)

1 Petition herein is, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, whereby the revision petition (ROR No.925 of 2025) preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed in default.

1.1 A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-11) passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, whereby an application (Miscellaneous No.165 of 2025) filed by the petitioner, seeking restoration of the main revision petition (ROR No.925 of 2025) has also been dismissed.

2. Briefly, feeling aggrieved against mutation No.1889 of village Bopar Rai Baj Singh, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, in respect of inheritance to estate of Sh. Joginder Singh (who is stated to have expired on

13.06.2016), petitioner preferred a revision petition (ROR No. 925 of 2025) before the learned Financial Commissioner, challenging the order dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

2.1 The aforesaid revision petition came to be dismissed for non-

prosecution vide order dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-6).

2.2 Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application (Miscellaneous No.165 of 2025) on 24.11.2025, seeking restoration of the main revision petition (ROR No.925 of 2025); however the said application has been dismissed vide order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-11).

3. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, present petition has been filed before this Court, for seeking relief(s) as noted hereinabove.

4. Heard.

5. Considering the nature of order being passed, notice of motion is being issued only to the official respondents No.1 to 4/State, at this stage, and there is no necessity to seek any response from the private respondents or even to serve private respondents No.5 to 15.

6. Mr. Nirmaljeet Singh Diwana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4-State, and very fairly submits that no reason is forthcoming in the order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-11).

7. A perusal of the order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-11) reveals that the abovesaid order is a non-speaking order as no reasoning is forthcoming, as to what has weighed in the mind of the learned Financial Commissioner in dismissing the application seeking restoration of the main revision petition i.e. ROR No.925 of 2025.

8. I have gone through the application dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure P-7) filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of the main case i.e. ROR No.925 of 2025 (which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 21.11.2025). A perusal of the said application would show that the reason for non-appearance on the part of the learned counsel was stated in para No.5 of the application, wherein it was mentioned that ‘on account of some personal difficulty, the counsel for the petitioner had to go out of station’. It has further been mentioned that although, he had requested another counsel to appear on his behalf to make a request for adjournment;

however, such prayer was not accepted.

9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner assures that the petitioner will be represented through her counsel on each and every date of hearing before the learned Financial Commissioner and would not seek unnecessary adjournments.

10. In my considered view, there is no reason to doubt the ground mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner for his non-appearance on 21.11.2025; however, keeping in view the assurance given by the learned counsel fo