GRAM PANCHAYAT NURWALA Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gram Panchayat of village Nurwala has directed this revision petition against the order dated October 9, 1979 of the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal dismissing its appeal on the ground that it has not been filed by a competent person.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that Gram Panchayat Nurwala gave on lease to Tara Chard respondent No. 1 a tractor bearing No. PJK-6091 along with its trolley and harrow at the annual rent of Rs. 1250/- Aforesaid Tara Chand refused to pay the lease money on the pretext that the trolley and the harrow were never handed over to him and that the tractor remained out of order from the very inception of its lease. This ultimately resulted in creating a demand of Rs. 24270.84 paise against Tara Chand plaintiff for the price of the tractor and the lease money and that it should be realised as arrears of land revenue. Tara Chand plaintiff then filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from realising this amount as arrears of land revenue. This suit was resisted by the Gram Panchayat as well as by the State of Haryana on various grounds, besides asserting that the said amount can be realised as arrears of land revenue. The trial Court found that the Gram Panchayat had leased out the tractor-trolley and the harrow to Tara Chand plaintiff and that he is liable to pay the said amount, but it could not be realised as arrears of land revenue and thus, restrained the State and the Gram Panchayat from realising this amount as arrears of land revenue. Against that order the Gram Panchayat went in appeal before the District Judge, Karnal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order dated October 9, 1979 holding that vide resolution No. 2 dated November 30, 1979 of the Gram Panchayat, Hargobind Sarpanch and Jagjit Singh Panch were authorised to engage a lawyer and prefer the appeal, but the lawyer having been engaged by Hargobind Sarpanch only, the appeal had not been filed by a competent person, Mr. H.L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that the wording of the impugned resolution written by some person conversant with Devnagri script clearly shows that he did not understand the meaning of word 'Wa' of Urdu language while jotting down that Hargobind Singh Sarpanch Wa Jagjit Singh Panch were authorised to file the appeal. He further contended that the word was should be read as 'or' and not as land. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Calcutta High Court in Chandra Nath Bagchi v. Nabadwip Chandra Dutt and others, 1931 AIR(Cal) 476. It was further stressed that the Court should not have dismissed the appeal on the technical ground in view of the basic principle of administration of justice. Mr. C. B. Goel, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the findings of the learned lower appellate Court contending that the Gram Panchayat has specifically authorised two persons to file the appeal in order to obviate the possibility of any bungling in incurring the expenses on this appeal and thus, Hargobind Singh Sarpanch alone was not competent to file the appeal.

(3.) In Chandra Nath Bagchi's case the controversy before the Calcutta High Court was regarding the construction of the words used in the consent decree. The facts in that case were that a mortgage suit was instituted in the year 1923. The suit related to a rice mill and certain properties connected therewith. On 2nd December, 1924, a compromise decree was passed according to which one of the parties was to continue in possession as receiver and certain payments were to be made in instalments. one instalment was to be paid immediately and the others were to be paid subsequently. There was a provision in the decree to the following effect :