R.S.A. No. 614 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 614 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.2.2009 The State of Haryana and another ....Appellants Versus Om Parkash ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. O.P.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal is directed by the defendants against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 29.8.2007 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 7.10.2008. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit against the appellants on the plea that the demand of Rs.58,759.58 was not sustainable as he was being asked to account for this amount which pertained to the irregularities detected in the year Kharif 1989 and Rabi 1990. It was pleaded by him that he was appointed as a Lambardar of village Naguran on 14.6.2000 and, therefore, he could not be made to account for the lapses which had occurred prior to his appointment and that too more than a decade ago. The appellants contested the suit and stated that this R.S.A. No. 614 of 2009 (O&M) -2- amount was due against the plaintiff/respondent. It was stated that from Kharif 1989 to Rabi 1990 an amount of Rs.16,802.84 was due as Abiyana which was to be paid by the father of the plaintiff/respondent being Lambardar. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.7,825.73 was recovered by Phool Singh Lambardar on behalf of the father of the plaintiff. However, the remaining amount of Rs.8,977.11 was to be paid which was demanded along with interest. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?OPP 2. Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands?OPD 4. Whether the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed with special costs?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for want of legal and valid notice?OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for want of ad valorem Court fee?OPD 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 9. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged?OPD R.S.A. No. 614 of 2009 (O&M) -3- 10. Relief. The learned trial Court as also the first Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff/respondent could not be made to pay for the loses or irregularities which had occurred in Kharif 1989 and Rabi 1990, much prior to his appointment which was in the year 2000. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse as they have not taken into account the irregularities and loses occurred at the relevant time when the father of the plaintiff/respondent was the Lambardar and therefore he was liable to settle the accounts. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is totally misplaced and the appeal is totally devoid of merit. The plaintiff/appellant, who was appointed as Lambardar in the year 2000 cannot be made to account for the irregularities which had occurred almost a decade back during the life time of his father. There is thus no perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. That apart, the appeal is barred by 19 days for which no cogent reasons have been mentioned. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 5.2.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss