GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE GARHI JATTAN, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT KARNAL THROUGH ITS SARPANCH TARA CHAND Vs. RANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Sec. 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') by the defendant-appellant Gram Panchayat challenges the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. The Civil Judge, Karnal has decreed the suit ex parte vide his judgment and decree dated 30.11.1983 which on appeal of the defendant-appellant has been maintained by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 31.10.1984.

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the plaintiff-respondents filed Civil Suit No. 78 of 1983 on 5.2.1983 for a declaration to the effect that they were owner in possession of the suit land since the time of their fore-father. It was claimed that they were gair marusi tenant and were in the cultivating possession of the suit land for over 35 years. The plaintiff-respondents asserted that they did not pay any rent to the defendant-appellants and that they were co-sharer in the village common land claiming that there was no interference from any one of the co-sharer or the defendant-appellant Gram Panchayat. The plaintiff-respondents had asserted that the defendant-appllant was trying to dispossess them which resulted into filing of the present suit. The Civil Judge, Karnal while accepting the ex parte evidence adduced by the plaintiff-respondents decreed the suit vide his judgment and decree dated 30.11.1983 in favour of Plaintiff-respondent. The defendant appellant filed an appeal against the ex parte judgment and decree which has also been dismissed. Rejecting the argument that there was no due service effected on the defendant-appellants, the learned Additional District Judge held that there was due service effected and observed as under:

(3.) The Id. Addl. District Judge further held that the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant was beyond the period of limitation because the defendant-appellant was duly served. The relevant observations of Id. Addl. District Judge, in this regard reads as under:-