JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.3.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Jind seeking restoration of appeal filed by respondent No.1 Gram Panchayat before the appellate court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order. He submits that after the appeal was withdrawn on a statement made by a duly authorised representative, no application for restoration was maintainable. The appellate court has erroneously directed restoration of the appeal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given careful thought to the facts of the case. 4. It appears that a civil suit No.237 dated 31.10.2006 was decided by the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind. Said suit was preferred by plaintiffs Sat Narain and Sia Ram, petitioners herein. State of Haryana and Gram Panchayat were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property and were directed to pay damages. Gram Panchayat Brah Kalan preferred an appeal against the said order. However, during the pendency of appeal, the authorised representative of Gram Panchayat Siri Dutt colluded with the petitioners and withdrew the appeal. The instant application was moved by the Gram Panchayat for restoration of the appeal alleging that Siri Dutt was only authorised to pursue the matter and not to withdraw the appeal itself. In view of his fraudulent conduct, request had been made to Deputy Commissioner to initiate action against him. It further contended that Gram Panchayat had come to know about the withdrawal of appeal when execution petition was filed by the decree holders. After hearing rival contentions, the appellate court accepted the plea of the Gram Panchayat and restored the appeal. Said order has been impugned before this court. I, however, find no legal infirmity with the order. It is evident that suit filed by petitioners Sat Narain and Sia Ram was decreed by the trial court in the following terms:- “21. In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and the same is hereby decreed, with costs. The defendants are permanently restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property, as detailed in the head note of the plaint, except in due course of law. Defendants No.1 to 3 are directed to return engine with Patta, three spades (Kassi), three plastic can containing six liters diesel oil to the plaintiffs. The defendants are permanently restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property, as detailed in the head note of the plaint, except in due course of law. Defendants No.1 to 3 are directed to return engine with Patta, three spades (Kassi), three plastic can containing six liters diesel oil to the plaintiffs. At the same time, defendant No.1 is burdened to pay to the plaintiffs as damages to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per acre from the date of filing of the suit till date of causing undue harassment. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.” 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree, Gram Panchayat preferred appeal before Additional District Judge, Jind. On 1.12.2010 a Panch, namely Siri Dutt appeared before the appellate court and stated that no decree of recovery had been passed against Gram Panchayat and it having initiated proceedings under section 7 of the Village Common Lands Act, would take possession in due course of law. The appeal may, thus, be dismissed as withdrawn. This plea was accepted by the lower appellate court and appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. It is evident that by virtue of decree, respondents were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land claimed to be Jumla Mustarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat. They had pleaded that mutation in favour of Gram Panchayat had been entered wrongly. Thus, the decree had far reaching effects on the rights of the State and the Gram Pancyhayat. As soon as the decree came to the knowledge of the Gram Panchayat, it moved instant application alleging that Panch Siri Dutt, who was only authorised to pursue or do Pairvi of the matter, had colluded with the petitioners and withdrew the appeal. 6. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that lower appellate court has rightly accepted the application of the Gram Panchayat and directed restoration of the appeal. Prima facie it appears that Panch Siri Dutt acted against the interest of the State and the Gram Panchayat and has, thus, committed an illegal act. It is left to the Gram Panchayat to lodge a complaint in this regard if deems fit. This revision petition is, however, dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————