Pritam Singh Cheema vs State of Punjab and Other

J.M. Tandon, J.—Pritam Singh Cheema filed C.W. P. No. 1282 of 1977 against the State of Punjab and nine other private Respondents, Including the seven applicants. The State of Punjab, (respondent No. 1) as also Gurdarshanjit Singh (respondent No. 3) and G.S. Boparai (respondent No. 6) put in appearance through their counsel. Mr. S.L. Chowla represented Respondents Nos. 3 and 6. The remaining Respondents were rot represented by a counsel. On July 28. 1982, the Registry sent A.D. post-cards to the unrepresented private Respondents in terms of Rule 8 of Chapter 3-A of High Court Rules and Orders, Volume V.

The writ petition came up for hearing on May 9, 1983, on which date the counsel for the State (respondent No. 1) alone put in appearance. The other Respondents were not present. On that date the writ petition was disposed of by the following order:

The Learned Counsel for the parties agree that this writ petition is covered by the ratio of the decision in Ex-Capt Gurnam Singh v. The State of Punjab and Ors. 1982, (1) S.L. Rule 258, and the seniority of the Petitioner shall have to be fixed in accordance with the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the State of Punjab will redecide the claim of the Petitioner regarding seniority in terms of Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 No order as to costs.

In November, 1983, the Respondents Nos. 2 to 8 filed R.A. No. 152 of 1983 seeking review of the order dated May 9, 1983, and praying that the same be recalled and the writ petition be decided afresh after hearing them on the ground that they were not represented by a lawyer and actual date notices in terms of Rule 8 of Chapter 3-A of High Court Rules and Orders, Volume V, had not been issued to them. They also filed Civil Misc. No. 3196 of 1983 u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act praying to that the delay in filing R.A. No. Ii2 of 1983 be condoned.

The Learned Counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants were not represented by a counsel and it was obligatory for the Registry to issue actual date notices to them in terms of Rule 8 of Chapter 3-A of High Court Rules and Orders, Volume v. No such notice was issued to the applicants. The order passed on May 9, 1983, in the absence of the applicants is liable to be reviewed and recalled. The contention is without merit.

It is incorrect that Gurdarshanjit Singh and G.S. Boparai (respondents Nos. 3 and 6) were not represented by a lawyer. They were represented by Mr S.L. Chowla The Registry has reported that the remaining applicants were sent A.D. post-cards on July 28, 1982. It is specifically provided in Rule 8 of the Chapter 3-A of High Court Rules and Orders, Volume V, that the posting of such postcards shall be deemed to be sufficient intimation to the party of the date fixed in the case The compliance of Rule 8 of Chapter 3-A of High Court Rules and Orders, Volume V, having been made by the Registry, the applicants cannot justifiably seek the review of the order dated May 9, 1983

Under the circumstances of the case, the delay in filing R.A. No. 152 of 1983 is condoned and C.M. No. 3196 of 1983 allowed.

In view of discussion above, R.A. No. 152 of 1983 fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.