JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 16.4.2022, passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, in Revision Petition No. 372 of 2008, titled Dharam Singh vs. Gian Singh and Others, whereby an application for extension of stay having been filed by the petitioners, came to be dismissed, petitioners have approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid impugned order and direct the authority to consider the application made by the petitioners for extension of stay during the pendency of the appeal. 2. Having regard to the nature of the order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this court sees no necessity to issue notice to the respondents because in the event of notices being issued to them, they would be unnecessarily compelled to engage lawyer to defend them in the case, which can be otherwise disposed of on the basis of material already available on record. 3. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that petitioners herein filed an application before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. for partition in land comprising khata No. 21, khatauni Nos. 49, 50 and 51, Kita-20, measuring 3-70-04 hectares, situate in Mohal and Mauza Sadwan, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. as per missal Hakiyat for the year, 1982-83. Vide impugned order dated 23.5.1992, learned Assistant Collector partitioned the land and the revenue entries were also incorporated according to this partition. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with partition order dated 23.5.1992, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed appeal bearing No. 06/2007 titled Dharam Singh vs. Gian Singh and Others, before the learned Collector, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. however afore appeal was dismissed vide order dated 4.6.2008, by the learned Collector, Nurpur. In the aforesaid background, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners approached the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, by way of filing revision petition bearing No. 372 of 2008. Learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala stayed the impugned order passed by the learned Collector. During the pendency of the aforesaid revision petition, petitioner Dharam Singh died and his LRs filed an application dated 24.1.2012 under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC (Annexure P2) praying therein for their impleadment. Learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala stayed the impugned order passed by the learned Collector. During the pendency of the aforesaid revision petition, petitioner Dharam Singh died and his LRs filed an application dated 24.1.2012 under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC (Annexure P2) praying therein for their impleadment. Though factum with regard to filing of the application was recorded by the learned Divisional Commissioner in its order dated 5.2.2013, but same was not considered on that date. In the meantime, respondent Gian Singh also expired and on 4.8.2017, an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC also came to be filed by his LRs for bringing them on record as LRs of the deceased. 5. On 28.2.2022, petitioners filed application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC, praying therein stay of the operation of order dated 4.6.2008, passed by the learned Collector, Nurpur in Appeal No. 6 of 2007 before the learned Divisional Commissioner (Annexure P-5). On 18.4.2022, the learned Divisional Commissioner allowed the application and stayed the order dated 4.6.2008, passed by the learned Collector, till the next date of hearing (Annexure P-6). On 16.4.2022, petitioners filed another application with a prayer to extend the interim order dated 28.2.2022 (Annexure P-7), however, learned Divisional Commissioner dismissed the same vide order dated 16.4.2022, on the ground that in the absence of the application to bring the LRs of Dharam Singh on record, it cannot be said that Sarwan Kumar is the Legal Heir of Dharam Singh S/o Kripa. Apart from above, learned Divisional Commissioner also recorded that neither prima-facie case is made out nor any balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the order dated 16.4.2022, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, at Dharamshala, this Court finds that order impugned in the instant proceedings is totally contrary to the record. Careful perusal of order dated 5.2.2013, placed on record, clearly reveals that application for bringing on record the LRs of deceased Dharam Singh was filed on 5.2.2013 and counsel earlier representing the deceased filed power of attorney on behalf of his LRs, which was taken on record. Careful perusal of order dated 5.2.2013, placed on record, clearly reveals that application for bringing on record the LRs of deceased Dharam Singh was filed on 5.2.2013 and counsel earlier representing the deceased filed power of attorney on behalf of his LRs, which was taken on record. Though deceased Dharam Singh had died on 24.1.2012, but court below without deciding the application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, having been filed by the applicants proceeded to grant stay against the order dated 4.6.2008, passed by the learned Collector vide order dated 28.2.2022, however when petitioners herein filed application for extension of the stay order, court below dismissed the application on the ground that applicants till date have brought on record as LRs of the deceased Dharam Singh. True it is that application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for bringing on record the LRs of the deceased Dharam Singh was never decided, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that on 5.2.2013, application was taken on record alongwith power of attorney filed by the learned counsel on behalf of the LRs of the Dharam Singh. Since learned Divisional Commissioner without impleading the aforesaid LRs, proceeded to pass order dated 28.2.2022, thereby staying the operation of order dated 4.6.2008, passed by the learned Collector, there was no occasion for him to dismiss the application for extension of time on account of non-impleadment of the applicants, who otherwise, being fully diligent filed application for bringing them on record on 24.1.2012, which has been not decided till date. Similarly, this court finds that though court below recorded in the impugned order that neither there is prima-facie case nor balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioners, but such finding is not substantiated by any cogent and convincing reasoning. 7. However, before passing appropriate orders, this Court needs to ascertain whether present petition is maintainable, especially when alternative remedy to file the revision against the impugned order is available to the petitioner. 7. However, before passing appropriate orders, this Court needs to ascertain whether present petition is maintainable, especially when alternative remedy to file the revision against the impugned order is available to the petitioner. No doubt, at the first instance, petitioners were required to file revision before the Divisional Commissioner, laying therein challenge to the order impugned in the instant proceedings, but Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Harbans Lal Sahnia and Another vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 107 , has categorically held that in an appropriate case in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein-below: “7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged [See Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 11]. The present case attracts applicability of first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the petitioners' dealership, which is their bread and butter came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings.” 8. Moreover, as noted, the petitioners' dealership, which is their bread and butter came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings.” 8. In the case at hand, petitioners have otherwise approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which empowers this Court to exercise supervisory power over the courts subordinate to it. Since impugned order has been passed by the quasi-judicial authority, this court can always exercise supervisory powers in case it is satisfied that order laid challenge is totally absurd and without jurisdiction and there is non-application of mind. Since in the case at hand, order impugned in the instant proceedings is totally contrary to the facts as well as material available on record, this Court while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India deems it fit to quash the order impugned in the instant proceedings. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 16.4.2022, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner is quashed and set-aside with direction to the court below to decide the application afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, before considering the prayer made in the application, court below would decide the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC expeditiously, however till then, interim order dated 28.2.2022, thereby staying the operation of order dated 4.6.2008, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner shall remain in force. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to cause presence of this client before the court below on 15.12.2022, enabling it to do the needful in terms of instant order expeditiously, preferably within three weeks. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.