Lehna Singh vs Gurnam Singh and others

S.P. Goyal, J.—The appellant filed this suit for possession of the site delineated as ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint claiming

himself to be its owner and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing him from using the passage in dispute.

Defendants Nos 1 to 5 denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the land in dispute, or that the Government school by the Panchayat through a

resolution which bears the signatures of the plaintiff as well. The trial Court upholding the title of the plaintiff decreed the suit. On appeal, the

learned Additional District Judge held that as the site in dispute was claimed to be Shamlat Deh by the State, the suit was not triable by the Civil

Court in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. 1961. The decree and judgment of the trial

Court was, therefore, set aside and the plaintiff has come up in the Second Appeal.

It is evident from the facts narrated above that the Panchayat is not a party in this suit. Even through the suit may involve a question as to

whether the land in dispute is Shamlat Deh or not, unless the Panchayat is a party, it was held by a recent decision of a Division Bench of this

Court in Bhagu and other v. Ram Sarup and others, 1985 R.R.R. 353 : 1985 P.L.J. 366, the trial of the suit would not be barred by the Civil

Court. In view of this DB decision which is binding on me sitting singly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment set aside. No costs. The

case would go back now to the District Judge, Ropar, for disposal of the appeal before the District Judge, Ropar, on October 27, 1986.