CR No. 4389 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 4389 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.9.2009 Mal Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Gram Panchayat village Longodeva ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. D.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The grievance of the petitioner-defendant raised in this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 21.3.2009 whereby the trial court dismissed his application for the refund of Rs.50,000/- deposited by him during the pendency of the suit, i.e. on 24.10.2000, and allowed the respondent-Gram Panchayat to withdraw the said amount after the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.7.2002. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant- petitioner restraining him from cutting and harvesting the paddy crop forcibly from the land measuring 112 kanals, which was taken by him on lease for Rs.1,38,100/- in auction. He allegedly paid Rs.5000/- as security and Rs.50,000/- as auction money to the plaintiff at the spot, but the Gram Panchayat denied having received the sum of Rs.50,000/- paid by the defendant-petitioner and filed the suit, as mentioned above. CR No. 4389 of 2009 -2- Since there was a serious dispute regarding deposit of Rs.50,000/- as part of auction money by the petitioner-defendant, the trial court vide order dated 29.9.2000 directed him to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- within 30 days with a stipulation that in case it was found that the defendant had already deposited Rs.50,000/- with the Gram Panchayat on 9.6.2000, then the plaintiff-Gram Panchayat would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.50,000/- which was to be deposited by the defendant in the court as per the directions of the court. Accordingly, in compliance of the order of the trial court dated 29.9.2000, the defendant deposited Rs.50,000/- on 24.10.2000. On 30.7.2002, the plaintiff-Gram Panchayat withdrew the suit and it was thereafter that the defendant moved the application for withdrawal of the said amount of Rs.50,000/- lying deposited with the court. The said application was contested by the respondent- plaintiff by filing a reply. It was pleaded that the application was not maintainable and the defendant had no right to withdraw the amount of Rs.50,000/- because the same was deposited in the account of the Gram Panchayat, Longodeva, in terms of the order passed by the trial court and, therefore, this amount is payable to the Gram Panchayat. According to the respondent-plaintiff, he has also filed an application for withdrawal of the said amount of Rs.50,000/-. The defendant also filed reply to the application filed by the plaintiff reiterating the facts as mentioned by him in his application for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by him. From the pleadings of the parties set up in the two CR No. 4389 of 2009 -3- applications, the trial court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether Mal Singh son of Sajjan Singh is entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.50,000/- which he deposited as per order of court dated 29.9.2002? Onus on Mal Singh. 2. Whether Gram Panchayat Village Longodeva is entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by defendant in the account of G.P.? Onus on Gram Panchayat. 3. Relief.” On appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the trial court decided issue No.2 in favour of the plaintiff-Gram Panchayat holding that it was entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the defendant on 24.10.2000. Under issue No.1, the trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant-petitioner had not been able to prove that he had deposited Rs.50,000/- twice in the account of the Gram Panchayat, as claimed by him, firstly on 9.6.2000 also, and decided the same in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Accordingly, the trial court vide order dated 21.3.2009 allowed the application filed by the Gram Panchayat-plaintiff for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.50,000/- and dismissed that of the defendant-petitioner. Hence, the present revision petition by the defendant. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the case file with his assistance. The trial court while deciding issue No.1 resulting into dismissal of the application of the petitioner, in para 14 of its order, has CR No. 4389 of 2009 -4- observed as under:- “14. Onus to prove this issue was upon Mall Singh. As discussed above in issue No.2, Mall Singh has failed to establish that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited by him twice in the account of Gram Panchayat. If he had previously deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- with the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat who had allegedly not issued receipt to Mall Singh and said amount of Rs.50,000/- has not been deposited by said Secretary with the Gram Panchayat, then Mall Singh cannot claim the refund of the said amount of Rs.50,000/-. Onus was upon Mall Singh to substantively prove that the said amount of Rs.50,000/- previously deposited by him, is also lying deposited in the account of Gram Panchayat but there is no such evidence on record in this regard and in this way Mall Singh cannot claim the refund of Rs.50,000/- deposited by him in pursuance of order dated 29.9.2000 passed by the Learned Predecessor Court. Thus, this issue is held against Mall Singh.” In view of the above, no ground for exercise of its jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Dismissed. September 23, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE