MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SIRHIND Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Patiala dated 29.8.1981 who has sustained the preliminary objection with regard to the competence of the Executive Officer or the Municipal Committee to file the appeal on the ground that there was no resolution authorising the Executive Officer to file the appeal. However, from the record and even from the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge it is clear that the resolution dated 25.7.1980 was produced and the learned Addl. District Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that the period of limitation had already expired on 18.7.1980 and the appeal was not competent.

(2.) The substantive question of law which arises for determination in this appeal is 'whether the Executive Officer would acquire competence to file an appeal before the District Judge in pursuance to a resolution passed by the Municipal committee in his favour subsequent to the date of filing of an appeal or the resolution in all cases in required to be prior in time to the filing of an appeal ?' In the alternative another question would arise as to whether 'An Executive Officer is competent to file an appeal before the District Judge on the basis of a resolution passed by the Municipal Committee which is general in terms or not ?'

(3.) Respondents-plaintiffs (for brevity 'the plaintiffs') No. 1 to 4 filed a suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of disputed agricultural land measuring 11 kanals 8 marlas fully described in the heading of the plaint and a further declaration that revenue entires in the name of appellant-defendant (for brevity 'the defendants') regarding the suit land are wrong and ineffective and, therefore, liable to be corrected. The suit filed y the plaintiffs was contested by the Municipal Committee and a written statement was filed by the Executive Officer denying the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. It was also averred in para 2 of the written statement that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff regarding the suit land was dismissed by the Sub-Judge Ist Class, Bassi Pathanan and the present suit was barred by the principles of res judicata. It was claimed that the suit land vest in the Municipal Committee and the mutation has been sanctioned by the revenue authorities in accordance with law. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the learned Sub-Judge 2nd Class Bassi Pathanan on 5.5.1980 and a declaration was granted in terms of the prayer made. A consequential declaration was also given that the revenue entires made in the record in favour of the defendant-committee are wrong and are thus liable to be corrected. Against the judgment of the learned Sub-Judge, an appeal was preferred before the district Judge, patiala being C.A. No. 150 of 20.8.1980. At the time of arguments of the appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, the plaintiffs raised an objection that the appeal was not competent as there was no resolution authorising the Executive Officer to file the appeal. The learned Addl. District Judge sustained the objection that the resolution produced before him was dated 25.7.1980 and the period of limitation for filing of the appeal had expired on 18.7.1980 and, therefore, the resolution would not confer authority on the Executive Officer from a retrospective date to file an appeal. The view taken by the learned District Judge is reflected in para 2 of his judgment dated 29.8.1981 which reads as under :