C.R. No. 6860 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6860 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 3, 2009 Gram Panchayat …..Petitioner Vs. Kashmir Singh and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sandeep Chopra, Advocate for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Gram Panchayat, Nurpur Bet, Ludhiana, through Member Panchayat Sh.Mohinder Singh, has filed this revision petition against the order dated August 7, 2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, by virtue of which application for condonation of delay of 62 days in filing the first appeal was dismissed on the ground that sufficient reasons have not C.R. No. 6860 of 2008 [2] been shown by the Gram Panchayat for condonation of delay. The plea of the petitioner- Gram Panchayat that the delay in filing of the appeal was on account of marriage of the daughter of the petitioner Mohinder Singh and on account of his illness was disbelieved. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the interests of Gram Panchayat will be greatly prejudiced in case the Gram Panchayat is not permitted to contest the appeal on merits by condoning the delay. I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents. The present litigation by the Gram Panchayat appears to be a frivolous litigation with a sole objective to linger on the proceedings. In this context, I have carefully gone through the judgment passed by the Civil Judge, Ludhiana, dated November 8, 2005 by virtue of which the suit of plaintiff- respondents for permanent injunction was decreed to the effect that the petitioner Gram Panchayat would be restrained to dispossess the plaintiff- respondents from the suit land except by due course of law. While giving a finding on issue No.4 regarding bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court, the trail Court has made an observation that the Court was not adjudicating on any question regarding the property being not sham lat vesting or not vesting in the Panchayat. In view of the fact that no judgment prejudicing the right of Gram Panchayat or its title has been given, the Gram Panchayat had taken up a specific plea before the Civil Court that proceedings for taking possession of the property under Public Premises Act, have already been initiated. The consequence of the first appeal by the Gram Panchayat would not have been of much importance as C.R. No. 6860 of 2008 [3] the rights of the Gram Panchayat to seek eviction of the plaintiff- respondents under Punjab Village Common Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act or under Public Premises Act has not been produced. It is always open to the petitioner Gram Panchayat to file ejectment proceedings against the plaintiff- respondents. Instead of taking appropriate proceedings for eviction of the respondents by adopting due process of law, time, energy and money of the Gram Panchayat is unnecessarily being wasted to file an appeal against the order. The judgment of the trial Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation seems to be well reasoned as the delay has not been properly explained by the Gram Panchayat. The revision petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of this revision petition will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the Gram Panchayat to seek the eviction of the plaintiff- respondents in accordance with law. The order of the Civil Court will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the petitioner Gram Panchayat in proceedings initiated by Gram Panchayat for eviction of the plaintiff- respondents. August 3, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE