Punjab Wakf Board vs Kishan Chand

S.S. Sodhi,

No exception can indeed be taken to the finding of the lower appellate Court that the appeal had not been filed by a person duly authorised and the consequent dismissal of the appeal on this account.

The suit, from which this appeal arise, had been filed by the Punjab Wakf Board in January 1972 through the Field Inspector, who was then the duly authorised official competent to do so. On May 5, 1975, a notification was, however, issued by the Punjab Wakf Board, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 22 of the Wakf Act, 1954, delegating powers upon Aukaf Officers regarding institution of suits in Court. A specific power was conferred thereby upon Aukaf Officers to prosecute cases already instituted by Field Inspectors in the same manner as if they had been instituted by Aukaf Officers. It was presumably under cover of this power that the Aukaf Officer had filed the appeal before the lower appellate Court. Admittedly, there was no resolution of the Board authorising the Aukaf Officer to file the appeal. Such being the situation, it must inevitably follow that the appeal filed was wholly incompetent.

The contention raised before the lower appellate Court was sought to be reiterated here, namely; that as an appeal is a continuation of the suit, the authority granted to institute the suit would extend also to filing appeals in the matter too. A similar contention was raised and repelled by the judgment of this Court in Murti Shri Raghunath Ji v. Joginder Singh etc., 1971 Current Law Journal 47, which was also later followed and approved in Patiala Aviation Club Patiala v. The Presiding officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana & Ors, 1974 P.L.R. 416. The view expressed therein namely; that there has to be a specific authorisation for the filing of the appeal, is clearly correct both in principle and in law and must consequently be accepted as correct and valid. In the face of this being the settled law, no occasion is provided here for interfering with the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court which is hereby upheld and affirmed. This appeal is thus dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.