HANOOT Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE PALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 Hapu instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 30/- plus 9/- as interest before the Gram Panchayat of Bar on the allegation that he was a co-cultivator with Hanoot in respect of a certain land but on the partnership in cultivation having been put to an end it was agreed that Hanot will pay Rs. 60/- to Hapu for the cost of manure and labour spent on improving the land. The defendant traversed the allegation. The plaintiff produced witnesses in support of his claim, one such witness being Mugna. The Gram Panchayat gave a decree for 30/- to the plaintiff by judgment of 25. 9. 52. The defendant Hanoot filed an appeal urging as one of the grounds that Mugna who appeared as a witness for the plaintiff was also one of the Panchas who decided the case. He urged that a member of the tribunal could not be a witness as also a judge in the cause. The Tehsil Panchayat, rejected his appeal on 29. 4. 58. The defendant filed a revision and the same objection was repeated. The learned District Judge, rejected his revision on 25th September, 1958. Hanoot has filed this application on 9. 12. 58 and two contentions are raised on his behalf - (1) That the suit was not within the cognizance of the Gram Panchayat, and (2) That Mugna being a witness could not sit on the Panchayat which decided the case.