MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, THANESAR Vs. HARISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 3956-C of 2012

(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 authorized 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 contends that this Court in Municipal Corporation, Amritsar vs. Arjan Kumar, 1993 104 PunLR 582, Municipal Committee, Mandi Gobindgarh vs. M/s Dashmesh Steel Rolling Mills, 2006 2 RCR(Civ) 407, Grindlays Bank vs. Mikado Woollen Mills, 1984 86 PunLR 672, Punjab University vs. Satinder Parkash Srivastava, 2005 4 SCT 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.