GHANI BROTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Authority appointed under section (52) (C) of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act (District Judge) dated 18 -9 -1977.

(2.) THE appeal has arisen out of a claim petition made by the State of Jammu & Kashmir against M/s Haji Habib Ullah Shagoo in which the appellants M/s Ghani Bros were arrayed as parties. A claim petition was field by the State against the respondent firm for realization of Rs. 19,72,958.00 on the ground that the agreement was executed by the respondent for the lease of compartment 47 -A and 47 -B Lidder Range whereunder the respondent had to pay a royalty of Es. 8,97,999.75 for extracting the timber of the volume of 2,40,805 cft as specified in the lease agreement. In the course of the proceedings, an application was moved before the Authority appointed that M/s Ghani Bros be impleaded as defendants in the case. This application was allowed and M/s Ghani Bros were ordered to be impleaded as defendants in the case. This order was made on 30th of October, 1976. On the same day the counsel stated that he represented M/s Ghani Bros and he was directed to file the power of attorney as also the written statement on the next date of hearing. But no power of attorney was filed although the learned counsel did make his appearance and sought time for the purpose. On 24.3.1977 Shri R.N. Kaul Advocate appeared. He tendered a statement that he had no instructions to appear on behalf of Ghani Bros. On this date, therefore, the court took ex parte proceedings against these respondents. Thereafter the case proceeded against respondent No. 1. In the claim petition, the court ultimately passed a decree in the case.

(3.) IN this appeal, it is contended on behalf of M/s Ghani Bros that proceedings before the Authority were taken in their absence. The appellants learnt from, extraneous source about the decree and filed an application for a copy of the judgment and decree. From the judgment it is apparent that the authority has been mis -led by the statement of respondent No. 1. For no fault of the appellants, the case was set ex -parte against them. The judgment and the decree passed against the appellants is illegal and in violation of the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure and in utter disregard of the rules of natural justice, The appellants were not heard. They were all along ignorant about the proceedings. They were not represented by any body. Mr. Raina has submitted that no counsel could make his appearance on behalf of the appellants unless he held a power of attorney and filed the same in the proceedings. Any statement made by Shri R. N. Kaul would not bind his clients without any power of attorney given to the learned counsel by the appellants.