Gram Panchayat of Village vs Santokh Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 18129-CII of 2013:

Application is allowed and reply on behalf of respondent no. 2, to application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

C.M. No. 18127-CII of 2013:

Application is allowed and reply on behalf of respondent no. 3, to application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

C.M. No. 2785-CII of 2013:

Reply on behalf of respondent no. 1, filed today in Court, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Copy given to the opposite counsel.

Heard.

This is application for condonation of delay of 100 days in filing the revision petition.

For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 100 days in filing the revision petition is condoned because the delay occurred on account of filing of Regular Second Appeal, which was however found to be not maintainable in view of Section 102 of the CPC (in short-CPC). Accordingly, delay of 100 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly.

C.M. No. 2786-CII of 2013:

Application is allowed and copies of judgments of the courts below are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Main Case:

Gram Panchayat has filed this revision petition u/s 115 CPC assailing judgment and decree dated 17.05.2012 passed by the lower appellate court.

Respondent no. 1-plaintiff Santokh Singh filed suit against respondent no. 5-Oma Devi Sarpanch as defendant no. 1 and against respondents no. 2 to 4 (Divisional Forest Officer, Bachittar Singh-Forest Guard and Block Development and Panchayat Officer) as defendants no. 2 to 4. In the said suit, petitioner Gram Panchayat filed counter-claim. The trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.2008, dismissed the plaintiffs suit and decreed the counter-claim of Gram Panchayat for recovery of Rs. 19,602/- from respondent no. 1-plaintiff. However, first appeal filed by the plaintiff against judgment and decree of the trial court has been allowed by learned District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 17.05.2012 and thereby, counter-claim preferred by the Gram Panchayat has been dismissed by the appellate court, while maintaining the dismissal of the plaintiffs suit. Feeling aggrieved, Gram Panchayat has filed this revision petition to challenge judgment and decree of the lower appellate court.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff had admitted having cut the trees of Gram Panchayat, and therefore, counterclaim of petitioner Gram Panchayat was rightly decreed by the trial court.

On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 1-plaintiff contended that petitioner Gram Panchayat was not party to the suit, and therefore, petitioner had no right to prefer counter-claim in the suit instituted by plaintiff against respondents no. 2 to 5.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions.

According to Order 8 Rule 6A CPC, a defendant in a suit may file counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff. Admittedly, petitioner Gram Panchayat was not party to the suit and was not defendant in the suit. Consequently, petitioner Gram Panchayat had no right or locus standi to file counter-claim in the suit instituted by respondent no. 1 against respondents no. 2 to 5. Finding of the lower appellate court, to the effect that counterclaim preferred by the Gram Panchayat was not maintainable, is fully justified and does not suffer from any infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 CPC. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.