SAO No. 32 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SAO No. 32 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: March 15, 2010 Dhir Pal and others ...... Appellants Versus Gram Panchayat ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Lower Appellate Court remanding the case back for fresh trial. The appellants No.1 to 4 had filed the suit claiming that they and appellant No.5(defendant No.2 in the suit) were earlier occupancy tenants of the land in dispute which had now ripened into ownership in view of Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants(Vesting of Proprietary Rights)Act, 1953. Despite service none appeared and consequently the suit was decreed. The Gram Panchayat filed an appeal claiming that no service had been effected. The learned Lower Appellate Court, as mentioned above, accepted the appeal and remanded the case back for fresh trial. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that once the learned Lower Appellate Court did not return a finding that the service had SAO No. 32 of 2008(O&M) 2 in fact not been effected, no case was made out for remanding the matter. It is further argued that a valuable right has now inhered in the appellant. He has further argued that in any case even if the remand had to be made the learned Lower Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to give its opinion on merits which it has done in para 18. It is further argued that even no costs have been imposed. In my opinion the learned Lower Appellate Court cannot be held to have acted illegally since it has based its decision on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.K.Prasad v. P. Arumugam 2001(3) L.J.R. 186(SC) wherein it was public property which was involved. However, as regards arguments No. 3 and 4, I find substance in the same. Consequently even while upholding the view of the learned Lower Appellate Court it is declared that the trial Court shall not consider the contents of para 18 of the remand order. Further the appellants would be entitled to costs of Rs. 20,000/- since not only have they had to file this appeal they will also have to engage fresh counsel for the trial Court. With this modification this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants informs me that the case is now fixed for 29.03.2010. It is made clear that the costs have to be tendered by way of bank draft of Rs.5000/- each in favour of the appellants No. 1 to 4 before proceeding further with the case. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 15, 2010 sunita