Market Committee, Ahmedgarh vs Shree Shiv Cotton & Oil Company

V.K. Bali, J.

This order will dispose of Civil Revisions 1828 to 1830, 2003 to 2007, 2259, 2383 and 2384 of 1991 which involve common questions of law and fact.

Market Committee, Ahmedgarh through its Secretary being aggrieved of order dated April 5, 1991 passed by Senior Subordinate Judge Sangrur vide which plaintiffrespondent on statement made by one Hem Raj, Naib Tehsildar, Ahmedgarh was allowed to pay amount payable towards Rural Development Fund by way of six halfyearly equal instalments, has filed the present Revision Petitions under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code in this Court.

The facts as narrated in these Revision Petitions would go to show that respondent prior in point of time filed Civil Writ Petition No. 890 of 1988 challenging the constitutional validity of Punjab Rural Development Act which was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of this Court on April 9, 1990. Thereafter when the petitioner Market Committee resorted to recovery of outstanding amount as arrears of land revenue through the Collector, the respondent filed a Civil Suit against the State of Punjab through Collector, District Sangrur and Assistant Collector II Grade, Dhuri. On the date when the impugned order came into being i.e. on April 5, 1991 one Hem Raj Naib Tehsildar Ahmedgarh appeared and after recording his statement and that of one of the partners of the respondentfirm, the Senior Subordinate Judge Sangrur passed the order, reference of which has been given in the earlier part of this judgment. It may be repeated that vide the aforesaid order, the amount due was ordered to be paid in six half yearly instalments.

It is an admitted position between the parties that Market Committee was not arrayed as defendant in the suit, reference of which has been given above. The counsel for the parties have not joined issue on the point that any order passed against the interest of petitioner Market Committee without impleading it as defendant would not be binding upon it. That being the position, it is not understandable as to how revision petition by a party who was not arraigned as such in the suit and on whom such an order has no binding effect would be competent. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this petition may be treated to have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and inasmuch as the order passed by the Court below works total injustice to the petitioner, the same should be set aside in the powers conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I find no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Obviously, the order passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge impugned in these Revision Petitions would not be binding upon the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. Somehow, if the said order is coming in the way of the petitioner to recover the amount due as arrears of land revenue, it has its remedy by making an appropriate application before the lower Court and to pray for setting aside of the same or choose its remedy that may be permissible under law. If the law so permits, it may even recover the amount by pleading that the order passed at its back without joining it as a party to the suit would not affect its rights in any manner whatsoever. However, the present Revision Petitions are misconceived and being wholly incompetent deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

Petitions dismissed.