Regular Second Appeal No. 1175 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1175 of 2009. (O&M) Date of Decision: 2.4.2009 *** Gram Panchayat, Jatheri .. Appellant VS. Roop Ram & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Ms. Dimple Sangwan, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. Delay of 91days in filing the appeal stands condoned. Through the instant regular second appeal, the defendant-Gram Panchayat is questioning the legality and impropriety of judgment and decree dated 12.9.2008 passed by the learned First Appellate Court below by dint of which the appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff has been accepted and the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2006 passed by the learned trial court, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff has been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed for recovery of Rs.60,000/- along with future interest @ 6%. The case of the plaintiff-respondent, the then Sarpanch of appellant Gram Panchayat is that he got constructed the pucka street in dispute and bore the entire expenses thereof from his own pocket since the Gram Panchayat was not have sufficient amount to carry out the masonry work. However, in the elections held subsequently the plaintiff was not elected and the elected Sarpanch refused to reimburse the amount spent by the plaintiff on the construction of the street, despite the recommendations made by the Department. The defendant Gram Panchayat contested the suit on the averments that the Gram Panchayat never passed any resolution for construction of street in question, rather the same was already in existence. Although the plaintiff produced evidence to prove that the street in dispute was got constructed by him by arranging the funds from his Regular Second Appeal No. 1175 of 2009 2 own pocket, but the learned trial court non suited him by concluding that since the plaintiff was not authorized to get the street in question constructed by the Gram Panchayat and that he do so out of his own free will, the plaintiff cannot ask for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him on the said task. In the instant case, it has been proved on record that on 23.7.1993 a resolution for construction of street in question was passed by the Gram Panchayat, of which the plaintiff was Sarpanch at that time. It has also proved on record that by that time the Gram Panchayat was not having sufficient funds to carry out the said work and it is the plaintiff who bear the expenses of the same, as has been established by plaintiff by producing over-whelming evidence in this regard. Not only this the Deputy Commissioner after getting the enquiry conducted in this regard, directed Block Development and Panchayat Officer to make necessary reimbursement of the amount spent by the plaintiff. There is no dispute to the fact that the street in question is being used by the inhabitants of the village. Taking into consideration all these facts, the learned First Appellate Court below, while relying upon the provisions of Section 65 and Section 70 of the Contract Act, as interpreted in the case laws, referred to in para No.8 of the judgment of learned First Appellate Court below, rightly concluded that the Gram Panchayat is under the obligation to compensate the plaintiff for the money spent by him from his own pocket on the construction of the street in question, which action of the plaintiff was never disapproved by the appellant, that too in pursuance of a valid resolution of the Gram Panchayat. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach of the learned Appellate Court below in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff is either illegal or perverse. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 2,2009 Jiten