MARWA MANGHANI Vs. SANGHRAM SAMPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The history of this case discloses a sad commentary on the way the Panchayat in question has dealt with the trial of a judicial matter. It is an instructive, instance which should set the authorities concerned thinking as to how far it is desirable to invest the Panchayat Courts as at present constituted with power of decision of civil disputes of the citizens of the Republic.

(2.) By an order dated 25th of January 1956, the Court of the Panchayat of Baghanke, Tehsil Nuh, District Gurgaon, Sanghram son of Sampat plaintiff was granted a decree for Rs. 195/- as principal and Rs. 4/12/-as costs, in all Rs. 199/12/-, against Marwa, son of Manghani, caste Ahir, resident of Baghanke, defendant. This decree was passed ex parte and the judgment which is written in Urdu is signed by three persons, by Kuria and Kallu Ram in Hindi and by Kishan Lal in Urdu. The English translation suggests that Kuria Sarpanch signed t two places but from the original proceedings there is nothing to show that Kuria is a Sarpanch, and he has also signed only at one place and not at two. The proceedings, according to the order, were ex parte because Marwa defendant had refused to accept service. It appears that on 11th of April 1956 when this decree was sought to be executed, by attachment and sale of the defendant's property, which was ordered to be issued on 17th of April 1956, revision, under section 65 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act No. IV of 1953, with the learned Senior Subordinate Judge who considered the Judgment of the Panchayat to be just and equitable and rejected the revision with costs.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge and the Panchayat, Marwa defendant has approached this Court by means of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The grounds, on which the impugned orders have been assailed, are that there was no quoram of the Panches at the hearing of the case; that the signatures of the members of the Panchayat had been forged on the order which was the result of partisanship of the Sarpanch who was interested in the plaintiff (the affidavit of Shri Lila Ram, Shri Kallu and Shri Pratap Singh, Panches, has been attached with this petition in support of this assertion); that the petitioner had no notice of the claim of the plaintiff respondent before the Panchayat and that the whole case was rushed through by the Sarpanch, at the back of the petitioner, who was deliberately kept in the dark about the suit that the proceedings before the Panchayat offend against all principles of law and justice; that the claim in suit was inherently false and improbable and was made up as a result of collusion and enmity of the Sarpanch and that there was no case made out, on the record, for passing the impugned decree against the defendant-petitioner as no order of the Panchayat purporting to impose fine against the petitioner's wife has been produced. This imposition of fine was, it may be stated, the sole basis on which the plaintiff's claim was based, be having allegedly given a loan to the defendant's wife for paying the fine imposed on her by the Panchayat. The order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge is assailed on the ground that he had failed to scrutinise the proceedings which were wholly illegal and irregular. With this petition is also attached one affidavit by Lila Ram, Kallu and Partap Singh, Panches, affirming that they were not present when the case of Maru Ram (Marwa) and Sanghram was argued and that they had not signed the order. Marwa defendant-petitioner's affidavit also contains the same affirmation viz. that Kallu Panch was neither present at the time of arguments nor had he singed the order. It is also asserted that the Sarpanch did not care even to inform Lila Ram, Partap Singh and Kallu, Panches, about this case. I further find, on the record, an affidavit dated 13th of February, 1958 made by Marwa defendant-petitioner in which he has stated that the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon, has incorrectly mentioned in his order dated 12th of June 1957 that he had heard the counsel for the parties. The petitioner has stated that at the time of hearing he had requested the Senior Subordinate Judge to permit him to bring his counsel, Shri Dharam Vir Kansal, who was then appearing in the Court of the S. D. O., Gurgaon, but the Court refused this request. It is further stated in the affidavit that he had brought to the notice of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge that the entire proceedings of the Panchayat were fictitious and collusive and that the petitioner had neither been summoned nor had he been given any notice of the hearing by the Panches. He has expressly asserted in the affidavit that he never refused to appear. This affidavit also supports the ground, taken in the revision petition, that Kallu Panch was neither present at the time of arguments nor had the signed the order and that the Sarpanch had not even informed Lila Ram, Partap Singh and Kallu, Panches, about the case. There is on the record still another affidavit, dated 4th of August, 1958, sworn by Shri Dharam Vir Kansal, Pleader, who was one of the Counsel of Marwa petitioner in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, affirming and declaring that when the case in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge was called for arguments, he was busy arguing another revenue case in the Court of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rewari at Gurgaon (in Camp) and that Marwa defendant went to him twice during the arguments in the Court of the Collector but he (Mr. Kansal) replied to the petitioner to request the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge to wait for him. It further declares that when he (Mr. Kansal) got free from the Court of the Assistant Collector, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge had closed the case and had given a date for orders. On the basis of this affidavit, Mr. P. C. Pandit, the learned advocate for the defendant-petitioner before me, has contended that his client has not had a proper hearing before the learned Senior Subordinate Judge and that the learned Judge has erroneously mentioned in his order that he had heard the counsel for the parties. This point, however, does not find place in the grounds of revision filed in this Court on 30th of September, 1957. I am also of the view, that there is no sufficient material before me to conclude that the learned Senior Subordinate Judge has wrongly stated in his order that he had heard the counsel for the parties. From the original record, I find that the revision petition in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge was filed on 15th of May 1956 through Shri Vijay Pal Singh and Shri Dharam Vir Kansal, Pleaders. The power of attorney in favour of these two Pleaders dated 15th of May 1956 is also on the record. An application dated 15th of May 1956 for stay of execution of the decree is also signed by these two Pleaders. On 16th of May 1956, Shri Dharam Vir, counsel was present and notices were ordered to be issued for 25th of June 1956. The records were also summoned but it appears that the necessary copies had not been filed with the appeal which were ordered to be produced by the next date of hearing. On 13th of June 1956, the intermediary date, it was observed that service had been effected but the records of the Panchayat had not been received in the Court nor had copies been filed by then. On 25th of June 1956, the file had still not arrived and the case was adjourned to 27th of July, 1956. On 27th of July, 1956, both the parties were present but curiously enough the records of the Panchayats had still not arrived and the Court passed an order that the records must arrive by 16th of August 1956 otherwise necessary steps, according to law, would be taken. Notice of this date was also ordered to go to the Sarpanch of the Panchayat. As stated above, two counsel had been engaged by the defendant-petitioner in the revision filed before the Senior Subordinate Judge. There is no material placed on the record showing that he--Vijay Pal Singh, the second counsel--was not available and did not appear at the time of hearing in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge. The affidavit produced by Shri Dharam Vir Kansal is worded in well-guarded language and he says nothing as to whether or not the other counsel was also busy elsewhere and not available. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge after hearing the arguments on 12th of June 1957 expressly mentioned that the orders would be announced on that very day and indeed we find that after the announcement of the orders on the same day Shri Kansal affixed his signatures underneath the record of proceedings in Urdu. The contents of the orders of Courts with respect to what happens in the course of hearing are of great probative value and truth must be presumed to attach to them. The affidavit of the type worn by Shri Kansal does not dislodge the presumption of correctness which usually attaches to the contents of the proceedings and orders of Courts. The petitioner's affidavit is hardly of much value in the circumstances of the present case. The omission of this plea from the grounds of revision filed in this Court is an additional factor which strengthens the presumption of correctness of the assertion contained in the order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge. I have, therefore no difficulty in holding that the counsel for the parties must be held to have been duly heard by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge as stated by him.