1 S.B.Civil Revision Petition No.473/2006. Gram Panchayat 78 GB. vs. Vijay Kumar. Date : 14.3.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. RK Singhal, for the petitioner. None present for the respondent. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as nobody appeared for respondent despite service. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 11.9.2006 by which the executing court rejected the judgment debtor's objection and held that the execution can proceed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/ respondent/decree holder filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants Jeet Singh and Gram Panchayat 78 GB (present petitioner). In the plaint, the plaintiff stated that he purchased one piece of land from Hardeep Singh on 20.1.1998 and, therefore, he is owner of the said piece of land and is in 2 possession. Defendant Jeet Singh, who was member of Gram Panchayat, gave threat to the plaintiff that why the plaintiff has purchased the open piece of land which is in front of Jeet Singh's house. In the plaint, though Gram Panchayat was impleaded as party but from the allegations levelled in the plaint, it appears that the allegations were only against defendant Jeet Singh. The plaintiff also sought decree against the defendant and not against the defendants. However, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 4.12.2002 wherein in operative part of the judgment, the word defendants has been used. The issue was only whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for injunction without specifying against both the defendants or against one of the defendant in the light of plaint allegations. Be it as it may be, the plaintiff/decree holder submitted execution petition to execute the decree dated 4.12.2002. An application in the execution petition was submitted by the plaintiff stating therein that defendant no.1 Jeet Singh entered into plaintiff's piece of land with his wife and he burnt the manure lying on the field. He also cut a tree and took it away. For this, the plaintiff submitted a criminal complaint in the Court on 11.11.2005. These were the allegations against the defendant no.1 – judgment debtor. The other allegations were against one Patram 3 s/o Banke Ram who was Sarpanch at the relevant time and who also, according to decree holder, helped defendant Jeet Singh. In the execution application, certified copy of which has been provided by learned counsel for the petitioner for perusal of this Court, it appears that there is no allegation against Gram Panchayat. From the allegations, it is clear that said Patram in his individual capacity might have helped Jeet singh. From the allegations levelled in the application, it has nowhere came out that Gram Panchayat itself has violated the decree and interfered in the possession of the decree holder. Despite this, instead of seeking relief against Patram, decree holder sought attachment of property of Gram Panchayat. In view of the above, it is clear that it is a case of no allegation against the Gram Panchayat for violating the decree which in fact is the only against the judgment debtor Jeet Singh. In these circumstances, the executing court had no jurisdiction to continue the execution petition against Gram Panchayat. It appears that the executing court assumed that a personal act of Sarpanch is an act of Gram Panchayat and that was not even the case of decree holder which is apparent from the allegations levelled by the decree 4 holder. In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed, the order dated 11.9.2006 directing to proceed against Gram Panchayat is set aside and the execution petition against the Gram Panchayat is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya