Gram Panchayat Jotisar and another vs Tirath Jotisar, through Swami Hira Nand

J.V. Gupta, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 420 and 421 of 1977, as the question involved is common in both the cases

2 The Gram Panchayat Jotisar through its Sarpanch Faqir Chand and one Panch, Ami Singh, brought the suit against the Defendant Tirath Jotisar. Objection was raised whether the Gram Panchayat was or was not competent to sue as such without all the members thereof having been made parties to the litigation. The learned trial Court relying upon the judgment of this Court in Mewa Singh v. Dalip Singh (1976) 78 P.L.R. 380, came to the conclusion that since the other Panches had net been made parties to the suit either as Plaintiffs or as Defendants, the said suit as such was not maintainable Dissatisfied with the same, the Plaintiffs have filed this revision petition in this Court

After hearing the Learned Counsel, I am of the considered opinion that the whole approach of the trial Court is wrong, illegal and misconceived. Mewa Singh''s case (supra), relied upon by it, has no applicability to the facts of the present case.

In the above-said case, the Gram Panchayat was a Defendant and the resolution authorised the Sarpanch to contest the suit against it. The other Panches thereof also wanted to contest the suit. It was in this context that it was held therein:

It is no doubt true that this rule (rule 16 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964), authorizes a Panchayat to appoint the Sarpanch or a Panch to contest any suit filed against it but that does not mean that the Panches themselves cannot perform the same function which they are authorized to delegate The Sarpanch, when appointed to contest a suit, acts, as their agent and there is no principle of law which bars the conduct of a suit by a party in person even though that party has appointed another to conduct the suit on his behalf. Inspite of the resolution, therefore, from which the Sarpanch draws his authority to defend the suit, the Panches are not debarred from putting in the defence themselves.

As regards the present ease, the Oram Panchayat is the Plaintiff and none of the Panches, has come forward to be impleaded as a party to the suit Thus, the view taken by the trial Court was wholly erroneous. Moreover, Section 8 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, introduced in Karyana in 1971 inter alia provides that every Gram Pancnayat shall, by the name notified under Sub-section (1) of Section 5, be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by the said name sue or be sued and do all such things as are necessary for which it is constituted. Thus, the suit filed by the Gram Panchayat as such was competent.

Consequently, both the revision petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the cases are remanded to the trial Court for proceeding further with the suits in accordance with law. Parties to appear in the trial Court on 21.1.85.