203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-CW-161-2026 in CWP-688-2026 Date of decision : 06.04.2026 Sukhdev Singh and another ...... Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :- Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for review-applicant/respondent No. 3.

Mr. Navneet Singh, Additional A.G. Punjab.

-.- -.-

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant review application (RA-CW-161-2026) has been filed by review-applicant/respondent No. 3, seeking review of order dated 19.01.2026, passed by this Court in CWP-688-2026, the relevant extract of which reads as under :-

“2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the petitioners have challenged the partition proceedings by filing the revision petition (ROR-1032-2025) before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, wherein the delay in filing the revision petition has been condoned and notices has been issued to the respondents in the revision petition. However, learned Financial Commissioner has rejected the stay application filed along with the revision petition without recording any reasons. It is submitted that the order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) to the extent, whereby the stay application of the petitioners has been dismissed, is totally non-speaking and un-sustainable in the eyes of law.

3. Given the nature of order being passed, notice of motion is being issued only to respondents No. 1 and 2, at this stage, and there is no necessity to seek any response from official respondents No. 1 and 2 or even to serve private respondents.

4. Mr. Harpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab, appears in pursuance of the advance copy of paper book having already been supplied to the State of Punjab. He fairly submits that the order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) to the extent, whereby the stay application submitted by the petitioners has been rejected, is non-speaking order as it is not forthcoming as to what has weighed in the mind of learned Financial Commissioner in rejecting the stay application. Learned State counsel further submits that appropriate orders can be passed for expeditious disposal of the revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners does not oppose the aforesaid course being adopted.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, the present writ petition is disposed of, by directing the learned Financial Commissioner to decide the revision petition preferred by the petitioners, within a period of four months from the date already fixed i.e. 12.02.2026, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties by passing a speaking order.

6.1 It is further directed that till the revision petition is finally decided, the parties shall maintain status quo (as existing today).

6.2 It is also made clear that the petitioners shall not seek unnecessary adjournments in the aforesaid revision petition. 7. The instant writ petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms.”

2. The instant review application is stated to have been filed in pursuance to order dated 25.02.2026, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-552-2026, the relevant extract of which reads as under :-

“1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to be impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP-688-2026.

2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeal may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to the appellant to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court that the impugned order has been passed at her back without serving her which is causing prejudice to the appellant.

3. Ordered accordingly.”

3. During the course of hearing of instant review application, it is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for review-applicant/ respondent No. 3 that order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure