Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 771 (PNJ)

Sher Singh v. Gram Panchayat of Village Kharora

2001-07-26

M.L.SINGHAL

body2001
JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - Sher Singh and others filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat at of village Kharora and others from interfering with their possession of land and they were directed to maintain status-quo as regards possession by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, vide order dated 25.10.2000. Gram Panchayat and others went in appeal against the order dated 25.10.2000 of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib. 2. During the pendency of the appeal before the Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, Sher Singh and others, plaintiffs filed application whereby they prayed that the hearing of the appeal be stayed and they be permitted to assail the resolution dated 26.9.2000, whereby the Gram Panchayat and authorised its Sarpanch to defend the suit. They prayed that they be allowed to take this objection before the appellate Court i.e. the Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, though they had not taken any such objection before the trail Court and there was no such issue before the trial Court. 3. There were two applications filed by the plaintiffs. One for rejecting the appeal on the ground that the resolution dated 26.9.2000 allegedly passed by the Gram Panchayat was filed by it in the trial Court surreptitiously and it was forged resolution and the second application was under Section 151 C.P.C., whereby they prayed that they be permitted to cross-examine the Secretary/Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and to confront him with resolution dated 26.9.2000 with a view to elicit "whether the said resolution was genuine, passed on 26.9.2000 or was forged afterwards and was inserted on the file of the trial Court surreptitiously after the filing of the written statement". There was another application filed by defendant Gram Panchayat to permit them to place on record copy of the duly passed resolution dated 2.11.2000 authorising the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to file the appeal. 4. Vide order dated 20.1.2001, the Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, allowed the defendants application to bring on record the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 2.11.2000, whereby the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was authorised to file the appeal. Vide the same order he dismissed the applications moved by the plaintiffs dated 23.12.2000 and 16.1.2001. 5. Aggrieved by this order dated 20.1.2001, Sher Singh and others, plaintiffs, have come up in revision to this Court. 6. Vide the same order he dismissed the applications moved by the plaintiffs dated 23.12.2000 and 16.1.2001. 5. Aggrieved by this order dated 20.1.2001, Sher Singh and others, plaintiffs, have come up in revision to this Court. 6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners(plaintiffs) that no resolution dated 26.9.2000 was passed by the Gram Panchayat authorising its Sarpanch to contest the suit and in the absence of any such resolution, the Gram Panchayat could not contest the suit. Suffice it to say that no such objection was taken by the plaintiffs before the trial Court. As such, they shall be deemed to have waived this objection. Even otherwise, there is a resolution by the Gram Panchayat dated 26.9.2000 authorising the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to contest this suit filed by Sher Singh etc. and there is no affidavit by Satnam Singh etc, members of the panchayat that no such resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat in their presence authorising Des Raj Sarpanch to contest the suit filed by Sher Singh etc against the Gram Panchayat. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no resolution dated 2.11.2000 was passed by the Gram Panchayat authorising the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to file the appeal. In support of his submission, he drew my attention to the affidavits of Pritpal Singh and Bhupinder Kaur, members of the Panchayat, who have sworn that no notice was given to them that the Panchayat would meet on 2.11.2000 and this would be on the agenda. Suffice it to say this resolution purports to have been signed by Satnam Singh etc. 8. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if any resolution had been passed by the Gram Panchayat on 2.11.2000, authorising the filing of the appeal, it would have been attached with the grounds of appeal. Three is no mention of this fact in the grounds of appeal. It was submitted that when this defect was pointed out during the course of arguments on 23.12.2000, by the petitioners, who sought dismissal of the appeal on the short ground that the filing of the appeal was un-authorised though the Gram Panchayat had moved application dated 23.11.2000 for permission to place the copy of the resolution dated 2.11.2000 on record. It was submitted that resolution dated 2.11.2000 was never passed on 2.11.2000. It was submitted that resolution dated 2.11.2000 was never passed on 2.11.2000. It was forged after wards and it was anti-dated with a view to legalise the filing of the appeal. It was submitted that why in the relevant column, the presence of the Panches present was not recorded. It was submitted that procedure for convening the meeting by serving all the Panches for the purposes of meeting was not followed and all the Panches were not served. 9. In my opinion, the filing of the appeal by the Gram Panchayat should be taken to be a valid appeal when the same was authorised by resolution dated 2.11.2000. It should not be presumed that resolution dated 2.11.2000 was false and forged. If the plaintiffs objection was genuine, the Gram Panchayat authorising its Sarpanch for the filing of the appeal and alongwith the appeal, the Gram Panchayat could make an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Section 151 C.P.C, for condoning the delay for delayed filing of the appeal. Why should it be taken that resolution dated 2.11.2000 is false and forged and the plaintiffs be allowed to cross-examine the Sarpanch. Whatsoever order is passed by the Additional District Judge in appeal, that will operate only during the pendency of the suit and therefore, this exercise will not mean much. 10. For the reasons given above, this revision fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.