IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.4623 of 2004 Date of Decision : 24.5.2010 Gram Panchayat village Tangrala ....Appellant Versus Mohinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : None for the appellant. Mr.Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal. It filed a suit for declaration that the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1998 passed by the Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh in Civil Suit No.242 of 26.4.96, titled as 'Mohinder Singh Versus Amarjit Singh & others' is illegal, null, void, without jurisdiction and not binding upon its rights. It was pleaded that the present respondent No.1, who was plaintiff in the earlier suit of 1996, referred to above, came seeking a declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of illegal decision of Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab dated 19.1.1996 which was set aside in subsequent proceedings and thus pleaded that since the very basis of the right of the respondents having been adjudicated upon conclusively, he ought to be restrained from interfering in the rights of the appellants on the R.S.A.No.4623 of 2004 -2- suit land. The right to proceed under the proceedings under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') had been granted to the appellant by the subsequent orders in which the order of the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab dated 19.1.1996 was set aside. It was thus contended that since the appellant was declared owner in possession of the suit property and it wanted to lease out the same, the respondent No.1, who was interfering in such process be restrained. Respondent No.1 contested the suit and denied the averments made in the plaint. He questioned the jurisdiction of the civil court on the ground that once a decree had been passed in his favour, the same could have been challenged by the appellant in appeal. He further contended that against the proceedings and the order passed by the competent authority under the Act an appeal was filed which is still pending and that subsequently the matter has been once again remanded back and consequently it cannot be said that the said proceedings have attained finality so as to entitle the appellant to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil court. Learned counsel for the appellant is not present. The appeal is of the year 2004 which cannot be adjourned further as there is no justifiable reason to do so. With the assistance of learned counsel for the respondents I have gone through the impugned judgments and have heard him at length. The foremost question that has to be determined is as to whether the appellant had any right to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil Court by filing a civil suit. It is to be mentioned that the primary R.S.A.No.4623 of 2004 -3- prayer is that the decree passed in civil suit No.242 of 26.4.1996 titled as Mohinder Singh Versus Amarjit Singh and others be declared null and void. Now the question arises that even if the appellant had not adduced any evidence, should it be permitted to challenge the said decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction by filing a fresh suit against it? I am of the opinion that the present proceedings were impermissible under the law. The only course available to the appellant was to challenge the said decree by way of filing an appeal which it did not do so. The subsequent suit filed to assail the decree was not maintainable. Further, even if in the eventuality of the fact being accepted that the claim of respondent No.1 in the earlier proceedings was based on the decision of the Addl. Director Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, which has been set aside, then also the present suit was not maintainable for the simple reason that the proceedings under the Act are still subsisting between the parties and the same having not attained finality, the appellant cannot base its claim upon such proceedings which are still in a state of flux. There is thus no ground to interfere in the appeal. Dismissed. 24.5.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss