Civil Revision No.1346 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1346 of 2011 Date of decision: August 26, 2011. Ram Kumar ... Petitioner v. Pyare Lal & Ors. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhiman, Advocate, for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.2.2011 (Annexure P-3) whereby application filed by the applicant- petitioner under under Order 1 Rule 8 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed and permission was denied to the petitioner to contest the suit. A Coordinate Bench while issuing notice of motion on February 25, 2011, had passed the following order:- “Plaintiff-respondents Pyare Lal and Mangat Ram had filed a suit for permanent injunction regarding a property situated in Abadi deh of village Dhanaouri, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala mentioned in the heading of the plaint against the Gram Panchayat of village Dhanaouri and the petitioner Ram Kumar as defendant No.2. The claim of the gram Civil Revision No.1346 of 2011 -: 2 :- panchayat in the written statement is that the property in dispute vests in gram panchayat and is being used for common purposes. The jurisdiction of civil court has also been challenged by the respondents. During the course of the trial, an election of panchayat had taken place and Palo Devi, wife of plaintiff – Pyare Lal – respondent No.1 has been elected as Panch of the village. She made another Panch to appear as defence witness against the interest of the gram panchayat. Vide order dated January 31, 2011, counsel for the plaintiffs made a statement that name of petitioner Ram Kumar (earlier Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat) defendant No.2 be dropped. On the basis of said statement, the name of the petitioner was dropped and the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence. The defendant – petitioner to safeguard the interests of Gram Panchayat had moved an application under Order 1 Rule 8 and 10 CPC for contesting the suit so that the interest of the Gram Panchayat is not prejudiced as the land vests in Gram Panchayat. Vide impugned order dated February 14, 2011, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala has dismissed the said application on the ground that plaintiffs are not seeking any relief against the defendant – petitioner Ram Kumar. Prima facie it appears that Gram Panchayat was impleaded as defendant No.1 through Ram Kumar in the capacity as Sarpanch. During the pendency of the case, Ram Kumar is no more Sarpanch and the wife of plaintiff – Pyare Lal being interested in the property has been able to support the Civil Revision No.1346 of 2011 -: 3 :- Gram Panchayat. So far as Ram Kumar is concerned, it cannot be said whether he has got any personal interest in the property. The Gram Panchayat had been impleaded through him. The trial court seems to have ignored the fact that in case name of Ram Kumar is deleted, there will not be proper representation on behalf of Gram Panchayat and probability of getting a collusive decree prejudicing the rights of Gram Panchayat might be obtained. It is a settled principle of law that it is always the duty of the court to see that property of the Government or of Gram Panchayat is not misappropriated and the process of the Court be not abused by the collusion of the parties. It appears that in the present case, the authorities exercising the powers under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act should be impleaded as a party. The legislation in its wisdom, to safeguard the interest of Gram Panchayat, as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act (as applicable to Haryana) that even an inhabitant of the village is entitled to file an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for put Panchayat in possession of shamlat land. Notice of motion for May 13, 2011. Operation of the impugned order will remain stayed. The defendant-petitioner would be permitted to continue with the contest of the suit.” Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhiman, Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, states that the entire proceedings in the suit stand concluded and now the suit is fixed for 24.10.2011 and on that day, only parties to the suit Civil Revision No.1346 of 2011 -: 4 :- have to advance their arguments. Since by virtue of interim order, the petitioner has been permitted to contest the suit, it will not be justifiable now to say that at the time of arguments, the petitioner will not be heard by the court. Hence, the present petition is accepted to the extent that the petitioner may also advance arguments at the time of final hearing of the suit. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] August 26, 2011. Judge kadyan