IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 38 of 2005 Date of decision: 8.12.2010 Kansh Raj …. Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Pahloo & anr. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Ms.Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.R.K.Gautam, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Archana Dutt Advocate. _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 30.9.2004 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Barsar whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a complaint was filed against the petitioner before the Gram Panchayat, Pahloo under the provisions of Section 12 of the H.P Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. This complaint was decided against the petitioner by the Panchayat. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 2 Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Barsar under Section 12(3) of the H.P Panchayati Raj Act. 3. In view of the order which I propose to pass, I do not deem it proper to go into the merits of the case or express any opinion on the rival contentions of the parties. The admitted fact is that the appellant- petitioner did not appear before the SDO (Civil) when the appeal came up for hearing and even the learned counsel for the respondent did not argue the case on the said date. The SDO (Civil) decided the matter on merits after going through the record himself. In my view, the SDO (Civil) should have either dismissed the appeal in default or should have fixed the case for another date and given another opportunity to the petitioner to appear in the case. In the absence of any assistance rendered by any of the parties or their counsel, the SDO (Civil) should not have embarked upon deciding the case on the merits itself. 4. Therefore, the order dated 30.4.2009 passed by the SDO(Civil), Barsar is set aside and the matter is remitted him to decide the same after hearing the parties. The parties who are present are directed to 3 appear before the SDO(Civil) on 17.1.2011. In case the petitioner does not appear before the SDO (Civil) then the appeal shall be dismissed in default and it will be presumed that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. December 8, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge