JUDGMENT : Augustine George Masih, J. C.M. No. 3956-C of 2012 1. Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 16 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Thanesar, the same is allowed. Delay of 16 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. C.M. No. 3957-C of 2012 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the appeal. The reason assigned for the delay is that because of the mistake of the counsel, who has been engaged before the Court below, who delivered the judgment to the appellant at a belated stage, delay of 35 days in filing the appeal has occurred. The said delay is stated to be neither deliberate nor intentional and no benefit has been taken because of this by the applicant-appellant in the appeal. The application is duly supported by the affidavit of the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Thanesar. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 35 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. C.M. No. 3958-C of 2012 Prayer in this application is for impleading the legal representatives of deceased Dina Nath-respondent No. 4. It has been stated that respondent No. 4-Dina Nath has died during the pendency of the appeal. The details of the legal representatives are mentioned in para-2 of the application, out of which, his three sons, namely, Harish Kumar, Ashwani Kumar and Inderjit are already respondents to the appeal. Prayer has, thus, been made for impleading Smt. Surinder Bala-the widow as the legal representative of Dina Nath as respondent. The application is duly supported by the affidavit of the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Thanesar. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the present application is allowed. Smt. Surinder Bala is impleaded as legal representative of the deceased Dina Nath-respondent No. 4. The Memo of Parties appended along with the application is taken on record. RSA No. 1467 of 2012 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra dated 18.08.2010, whereby the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in plot measuring 280 Sq. The Memo of Parties appended along with the application is taken on record. RSA No. 1467 of 2012 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra dated 18.08.2010, whereby the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in plot measuring 280 Sq. Mts., as shown in plan P-1 in Khasra No. 221/48 Dara Kalan, Thanesar, as detailed in the suit and for further restraining the installation of tubewell in the suit land or from dispossessing the appellant-plaintiff forcibly without due process of law, has been decreed, appeal against which preferred by the Municipal Council, Thanesar has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra on 03.09.2011 primarily on the ground that the appeal filed by the Secretary of the Municipal Council, Thanesar is not maintainable as there is no resolution passed by the Municipal Council authorising the Secretary to file the appeal. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that after issuance of notice in the appeal on 20.09.2010 for 06.12.2010, when the respondents put in appearance and sought time to file reply to the application and thereafter, further time was sought for filing reply, no objection was formally taken with regard to the maintainability of the appeal and the objection was raised at the time of the arguments, thus, the said objection could not have been taken into consideration by the Court below. 3. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as per Resolution No. 9 dated 14.12.2009, which has been passed by the Municipal Council, Thanesar, the Secretary of the Municipal Council has been authorised to defend/initiate proceedings in any Court including an appeal and, therefore, in the light of the said resolution, the Secretary is the competent authority to file the appeal. He, thus, contends that the resolution of a corporate body being already passed merely because of the same has not been placed on record, cannot be a ground for holding that the appeal filed by the Secretary would not be maintainable. He, thus, contends that the resolution of a corporate body being already passed merely because of the same has not been placed on record, cannot be a ground for holding that the appeal filed by the Secretary would not be maintainable. He contends that this Court in Municipal Corporation, Amritsar v. Arjan Kumar, 1993 (2) PLR 582, Municipal Committee, Mandi Gobindgarh v. M/s Dashmesh Steel Rolling Mills, 2006 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 407, Grindlays Bank v. Mikado Woollen Mills, 1984 PLR 672 , Punjab University v. Satinder Parkash Srivastava, 2005 (4) S.C.T. 102, has held that the appeal is maintainable without a resolution. He, accordingly, prays that the impugned judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance, have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court. 5. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that despite having taken various opportunities to file reply to the application filed in the appeal, no objection was taken with regard to the maintainability of the appeal, cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that an appeal filed by an incompetent person is no appeal in the eyes of law and, therefore, whether a formal written objection is taken or not but when confronted with this objection, the appellant should have either sought time to place on record the authority letter or would have justified the filing of the appeal by the Secretary on the basis of the statutory provisions, which was not done by the appellant and, therefore, the Court has rightly proceeded to decide this objection of the appellant with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. 6. It is an admitted fact that there is no resolution placed on record, which authorizes the Secretary of the appellant to file an appeal against the impugned judgment. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon Resolution No. 9 dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Municipal Corporation, Thanesar but the same has not been placed on record of the Lower Appellate Court nor has it seen the light in the present appeal. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon Resolution No. 9 dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Municipal Corporation, Thanesar but the same has not been placed on record of the Lower Appellate Court nor has it seen the light in the present appeal. In the light of the fact that there is no resolution on the record of the case file of the Lower Appellate Court, the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the appeal would be maintainable, could have been accepted assuming such power on the Secretary was conferred by the Statute. No provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 or the Bylaws thereunder have been brought to the notice of the Court, which authorise the Secretary of the Municipal Council to file an appeal. The Lower Appellate Court has reproduced Bylaw No. 43 of the Haryana Municipal Business Byelaws, 1981, which have been formulated under the authority, as provided under Section 31 (1) of the Act. None of the provisions referred therein authorise the Secretary of the Municipal Council to contest any case or file any appeal. In the light of the above provisions, the Lower Appellate Court is right in holding that the Secretary of the Municipal Council, Thanesar, Kasturi Lal, who has filed the appeal, is not the competent person to do so as he has not been authorised to file the appeal. 7. The two basic judgments, on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the appellant, i.e. Municipal Corporation, Amritsar (supra) and Municipal Committee, Mandi Gobindgarh (supra), were cases where the Statute confers the powers to institute legal proceedings upon the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation and the Executive Officer of the Municipality respectively. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no provision under the Statute or the Bylaws. As regards the judgment in the case of Grindlays Bank (supra) is concerned, the Power of Attorney has been considered, which was on the record as Ex. A-1 and Clause 20 thereof clearly gave the power to the Power of Attorney holder to engage a counsel to file an appeal. Present is a case where position is altogether different as there is no resolution on the record which would confer the powers on the Secretary, Municipal Council, Thanesar, to file an appeal. A-1 and Clause 20 thereof clearly gave the power to the Power of Attorney holder to engage a counsel to file an appeal. Present is a case where position is altogether different as there is no resolution on the record which would confer the powers on the Secretary, Municipal Council, Thanesar, to file an appeal. As regards the judgment in the case of Punjab University (supra), again the position was the same where there was a ratification conferring the powers upon the Registrar to file the appeal. Unfortunately, the same is not the position in the present case as well. None of the judgments, on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the appellant, would be applicable to the case in hand. The judgments, therefore, passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court holding the appeal to be not maintainable cannot be faulted with. 8. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same stands dismissed.