Gram Panchayat, Nurwala vs Tara Chand and another

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.—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.

The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that Gram Panchayat Nurwala gave on lease to Tara Chand Respondent No. 1 a tractor bearing No. PJK-6091 along with its trolley and harrow at the annual font of R. 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 relisted 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 (he 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 Oct. 9, 1979 holding that vide resolution No. 2 dated Nov. 30, 1978 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. V. 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 ''Wa'' should be read as ''or'' and not as ''and''. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Calcutta High Court in Chandra Nath Bagchi Vs. Nabadwip Chandra Dutt and Others, . It was further stre sed 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.

In Chandra Nath Bagchi''s case (supra) 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:

in default of payment of two consecutive instalments by the receiver and in breach of the terms mentioned in CI. (D)....

The learned District Judge had held that the word ''And'' should be construed as such and that, therefore, the decree for instalments cannot be executed unless two instalments are in arrears and also there is failure to insure. Mr. Rankin, the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court (as he then was) disposed of this matter with the following observations:

When one looks at the clause, it becomes abundantly apparent that it is not a clause framed in accurate and precise language by somebody who knows the value and meaning of the words used. It cannot mean "and in default of breach". It seems to me that we must look at the substance of the matter to see what construction can reasonably be put upon the clause. If it means that in order to have a right to execute the decree not only must two instalments be in arrear but also there must be a failure to insure, then so long as two instalments are not in arrear there is nothing to compel the mortgagor to insure so far as this clause is cancerned. In the same way, so long as he insures, there is nothing to prevent default in paying all the instalments one after the other without bringing the clause into operation. This is a most extra-ordinary intention. I think this clause should be read as meaning that, in default of payment of two consecutive instalments, the Plaintiff will be entitled to execute the decree and in case of a breach of the convenant to insure the Plaintiff will be entitled to execute the decree.

With the above referred remarks the appeal was allowed and the case was sent back to the District Judge for proceeding with the execution proceedings.

In the present case also, it appears that the Gram Panchayat had resolved unanimously to assail the order of the Subordinate Judge before the District Judge and obviously appointed the Sarpanch and one Panch for filing the appeal after engaging advocate et cetera. It also appears that the resolution has been written by some person conversant with Devnagri script and not knowing the import of the word ''Wo'' of Urdu language. The very act of mentioning two persons to file and persue the appeal shows that this arrangement was made in order to insure the availability of one or the other to persue this matter. Thus, if this resolution is construed in the above referred background, there is no option but to hold that the word ''Wa'' in this resolution was used in the sense of ''or'' and not ''and''.. There is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that two persons were nominated jointly to persue the appeal in order to rule out the possibility of squandering the Panchayat funds as the Sarpanch being the head of the Gram Panchayat would be the last person to allow such resolution to be passed or in other words to allow his honesty to be questioned indirectly. The dominate purpose of passing the resolution by such a statutory body like the Panchayat etc. is that it should be the majority decision of the Panchayat whether the appeal is required to be filed or not. Thus, the above referred minor technicality should not be allowed to hamper the course of justice.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge is hereby set aside by accepting this revision petition. The appeal is, therefore, ordered to be restored against its original number and directed to be disposed of according to law. There is, however, no order as to costs in this revision petition.