R.S.A. No. 2020 of 2007 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2020 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 9.3.2009 Gram Panchayat Naultha .......... Appellant Versus Banwari & others. ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 5693-C of 2007 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 77 days in filing the appeal. The reasons given in the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal read as under :- “2. That the Sarpanch could not be able to appear on 10-08-2006 before the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Panipat when the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. ADJ, Panipat. 3. That thereafter Sarpanch could not able to contact his counsel till 14.12.2006 as her husband was ill and she has to look after him. Moreover, the counsel for the Sarpanch also could not be able to inform her about the dismissal of the appeal. R.S.A. No. 2020 of 2007 2 4. That the applicant came to know about the dismissal of appeal only on 14.12.2006 and thereafter on the same day the applicant applied for the certified copy of the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below and thereafter, getting the resolution passed filed the present appeal before the Hon'ble Court. 5. That the delay occurred in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but had occurred due to bona fide reasons. The applicant would suffer due to bona fide reasons. The applicant would suffer an irreparable loss and injury in case the delay in filing the present appeal is not condoned.” The averments made in the application, even if, are taken to be true do not make out a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 77 days in filing the appeal the delay is proved to be due to the negligence of the Sarpanch. No ground for condoning the delay is made out. Dismissed. R.S.A. No. 2020 of 2007 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 7.10.2005 and 10.8.2006 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for correction of revenue record in pursuance to the judgment and decree passed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed. The appellant / Gram Panchayat had filed a petition for eviction R.S.A. No. 2020 of 2007 3 of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondent seeking possession by claiming the property to be Shamlat Deh. However, it was held that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff respondent was owner of the land in dispute. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit seeking direction to the revenue authorities for correction of the revenue record in view of the judgment passed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff- respondent. The suit was contested by the Gram Panchayat by taking a plea that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the proceedings as the property in dispute is Shamlat Deh. The plea was also taken that subsequent to the decision by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for injunction which was dismissed in default and, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The learned Courts below on appreciation of documentary and oral evidence brought on record have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the claim raised by the appellant / Gram Panchayat was hit by the principle of res judicata as in the prevision litigation between the parties, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondent was held to be owner in possession of the property in dispute. The learned Courts also non-suited the appellant / Gram Panchayat regarding their plea of res judicata by holding that the cause of action to challenge the order of the revenue Court was different from the one raised in the injunction application. The Civil Court under Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue R.S.A. No. 2020 of 2007 4 Act is competent to adjudicate qua legality of orders passed by revenue authorities. The decree passed by learned Courts below is in consonance with the settled law and appeal raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. Thus, this appeal is dismissed on merit as well as on limitation. 9.3.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE