RAJDEEP KAUR Vs. DAVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision petition, challenge has been made to an order dtd. 27/2/2020 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jalandhar, whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d)CPC, filed at the instance of petitioner-defendant No.1 seeking rejection of plaint being barred by law has been rejected.

(2.) The facts leading to the present case are that a suit for recovery of damages on account of malicious prosecution and defamation came to be filed at the instance of respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner and the proforma respondents. It was averred in plaint that based on the resolution dtd. 16/8/2009 passed by the Gram Panchayat, to which the petitioner/defendant happens to be a Sarpanch, an FIR No.322 dtd. 28/9/2009 under Ss. 427 and 447 IPC, alleging unauthorized occupation of respondent No.1/plaintiff over panchayat land was registered at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar. It was 1 of 10 stated that the respondent No.1 was acquitted of the charges vide judgment dtd. 7/1/2017 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar and the said order was even affirmed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dtd. 25/8/2017. It was further averred that false FIR was registered against the respondent No.1/plaintiff with an idea to lower his prestige in the estimation of his friends, relatives, based thereupon a claim for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution and defamation was made.

(3.) Petitioner-defendant No.1 moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC with a prayer for rejection of plaint on account of it being barred by law. Reliance was placed upon Ss. 16, 22 and 218 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "an Act") so as to contend that the resolution dtd. 16/8/2009 was passed by the Gram Panchayat to which the petitioner happened to be Sarpanch, in discharge of duties as regards removal of encroachments on public properties and the said act was thus protected under Sec. 218 of the Act, and as such, no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings could have been maintained in this regard by respondent No.1/plaintiff.