IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 148 of 2004 Date of decision: 9.12.2010 Amar Singh ... Petitioners Versus Bansi Ram and anr. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.1. V. K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 30.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, vide which the appeal of the petitioner under Section 67 of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act has been dismissed only on the ground of limitation. Notice of the petition was issued to respondent No.1 and the record was also called for. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 4. The brief facts are that when the case was pending before the Gram Panchayat, it allegedly disposed of the case on 12.7.2003. The petitioner applied for copy of the order, which was supplied to him. The 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 learned Addl. CJM, Ghumarwin, who was hearing the case, passed the impugned order on the appeal filed under Section 67 of the Panchayati Raj Act that the appeal of the petitioner was beyond time, hence it was dismissed on the ground of limitation. A perusal of the order shows that the learned Addl. CJM has observed that the order of the Gram Panchayat was passed on 12.7.2003 and the appeal should have been filed before 12.8.2003. But, since the appeal was time barred on 31.10.2003, therefore, it was held to be beyond the period of 30 days. It was pointed by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the petitioner filed the application for copy of order on 28.8.2003 that there is a decision of Gram Panchayat dated 12.7.2003. The period of limitation had already expired. A perusal of the record of Panchayat shows that though it was shown that the order was passed on 12.7.2003, yet there is an application filed by the petitioner for adjournment of the case, dated 28.7.2003, in which he has prayed that since he has hearing before the court of Sub Judge, Ghumarwin, he cannot appear before the Panchayat, which clearly shows that the case was not decided on 12.7.2003 by the Panchayat, as has been observed from the copy of the order passed by the Panchayat. A perusal of the record also shows that the orders of the Panchayat are also attached with the file, which clearly shows that on 12.7.2003, the case was adjourned to 28.7.2003 on which date, the application of the petitioner was considered and the case was fixed for orders on 28.8.2003. 5. All these facts clearly show that the case was not decided on 12.7.2003, but it was decided on 28.8.2003 only and the date of decision has been wrongly mentioned by the Panchayat and the appeal was filed within the period of 30 days on 31.10.2003 as the date of delivery of the copy of the order is 9.10.2003. Therefore, keeping in view all these facts 3 and the fact that the date of the order was wrongly mentioned by the Panchayat, it is clear that the appeal was filed within 30 days and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. CJM, Ghumarwin is liable to be set aside. 6. In view of above discussion, the impugned order dated, 30.4.2004 passed by the Addl. CJM, Ghumarwin is set aside. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Addl. CJM, Ghumarwin on 3.1.2011, who will readmit the appeal on its original number and shall dispose of the matter within two months from the date of hearing fixed by the Court. Therefore, a copy of this order along with record of the case be returned to the courts below. (V.K. Ahuja), December 9, 2010 Judge (pankaj)