Palani Goundan vs Kuppanda Goundan and Others

Section 73 of the Village Court is Act does not contemplate a Village Munsif being made a party to proceedings taken under that section. The

section applies to proceedings between litigants and empowers a District Munsif to set aside any decree or order affecting the rights of litigants for

any of the reasons specified in the section, amongst others corruption, gross partiality or misconduct on the part of the Village Munsif. Even if

corruption, gross partiality or misconduct is made out, all that the District Munsif can do is to set aside the decree or order complained of. He

cannot, while setting aside any decree or order, make any order for payment as against the Village Munsif him-self. So far as the Village Munsif is

concerned the proper course for the District Munsif, if he is satisfied that there has been corruption, gross partiality or misconduct on the part of

the Village Munsif, is to proceed u/s 74 and report the case to the District Judge.

The order of the District Munsif in so far as it ordered the third counter-petitioner the Village Munsif to refund, was clearly made without

jurisdiction and must be set aside. This, of course, is without prejudice to the rights (if any) of the petitioner before the lower Court to proceed

against the Village Munsif for damages by reason of his alleged misconduct. The order of the District Munsif cancelling the decree and the

execution proceedings was made without trial or inquiry and upon the unsworn statement of the first counter-petitioner''s pleader. The District

Munsif should have gone into the question whether the first counter petitioner before the lower Court had, in fact, received the twenty rupees which

was claimed from him, and if he was satisfied that he had received this sum or was otherwise responsible therefor, the District Munsif ought to have

directed the repayment of this amount by the first counter-petitioner to the petitioner.

We must therefore set aside the order of the District Munsif and direct him to restore the petition to his file in so fat as the first counter-petitioner

is concerned and dispose of it according to law.

The objection that the third counter-petitioner was improperly made a party was not taken in the lower Court nor in the grounds of the petition

to this Court. We accordingly make no order as to costs.