C.R. No. 5912 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5912 of 2009 Date of Decision: October 14, 2009 Gram Panchayat, Village Sohian …..Petitioner Vs. Gurudwara Dukh Nivaran Sahib, Kaimbsar …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Ms. Monika Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Gram Panchayat, Village Sohian, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana through its Sarpanch Gurmail Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated January 20, 2009, closing the evidence of the defendant- petitioner in a suit for injunction filed by plaintiff- respondent as well as the judgment and decree dated January 21, 2009 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jagraon, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff- respondent. C.R. No. 5912 of 2009 [2] When confronted with the availability of alternative remedy of appeal being available to the defendant- petitioner under Order 41 and Section 96 CPC, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit had been filed by the plaintiff - respondent Sukhdev Singh, who was President of the Managing Committee of the plaintiff- respondent in collusion with Nachhatar Singh who held the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Village Sohian. In order to support of her contention, counsel has referred to the vague written statement filed on behalf of Gram Panchayat as well as to the act of Gram Panchayat in not producing any evidence on behalf of defendant. It is contended that the present Sarpanch Gurmail Singh has come to know about the collusion of the former Sarpanch with the President of the Managing Committee of plaintiff- respondent who also happens to be the Panch of the Gram Panchayat. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Dewan Chand Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur, 1995 (3) PLR 65, wherein it had been observed that where illegality is writ large on the face of the record and the facts do not have to be proved in order to demonstrate it, it is always open to the High Court to exercise its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the said case, the High Court had given a direction to the Subordinate Judge to dismiss the suit pending before it. Holding in the circumstances of the said case that no useful purpose will be served if the petitioner in the said case is allowed to go through an onerous and protracted trial for no rhyme and reason. The defendant- petitioner has been able to prima facie show some collusion which is apparent from the written statement and C.R. No. 5912 of 2009 [3] conduct of the former Sarpanch. A copy of the jamabandi for the year 2004-05 pertaining to the land in dispute has been produced on record indicating that the land in dispute is owned by the Gram Panchayat and in the remarks column, there is a reference of the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Jagraon, which decree is claimed by the defendant- petitioner to be collusive and indicative of a fraud having been played upon the Court by the parties to grab the land of Gram Panchayat. The impugned order closing the evidence of the defendant- petitioner (annexure P-1) dated January 20, 2009 and the judgment and decree dated January 21, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge can be challenged by the defendant- petitioner by filing an appeal before the District Judge, Ludhiana. So far as the order of closing of the evidence of defendant- petitioner vide order dated January 20, 2009 is concerned, it can always be challenged under Order 43 Rule 1A CPC in the main appeal which can be filed by the defendant- petitioner- Gram Panchayat. The circumstances of this case indicate that certain disputed questions of fact and law are required to be determined which exercise cannot be taken up by this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As such, on account of availability of alternative remedy, it is deemed appropriate and in the interest of justice to relegate the defendant- petitioner to the alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the District Judge, Ludhiana. The delay, if any, in filing of the appeal, will be condoned by the District Judge. It will be open to the defendant to file an application for amendment of the written statement, production of evidence and raise a plea of collusion or fraud having been C.R. No. 5912 of 2009 [4] played. It will always be open to the defendant- petitioner to raise the plea of non-availability of jurisdiction in the Civil Court when the property in dispute is shown to be vesting in Gram Panchayat. With the above observation, this petition is disposed of as premature relegating the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. Meanwhile, the operation of the judgment and decree dated January 21, 2009 will remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal to be filed by the defendant- petitioner. It is made clear that in case the appeal is not filed within a period of one month after the receipt of a certified copy of the order, this revision petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. October 14, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE