Umro Singh and ors. Vs. Gram Panchayat - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/616449
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-04-2006
Case NumberRegular Second Appeal No. 1196 of 1980
Judge Hemant Gupta, J.
Reported in(2006)143PLR366
ActsPunjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Sections 13 and 13B; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 43, Rule 1A
AppellantUmro Singh and ors.
RespondentGram Panchayat
Advocates: Harvinder Singh, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....hemant gupta, j.1. the plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court on 23.1.1980, whereby it has been held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.2. the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of construction raised over a part of abadi deh. it was stand of the gram panchayat that the land underneath such construction is part of shamlat deh. though the learned trial court decreed the suit by returning a finding that the civil court has a jurisdiction to entertain the suit, but the learned first appellate court returned a finding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit in view of the provisions of sections 13 and 13-b of the punjab.....
Judgment:

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 23.1.1980, whereby it has been held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of construction raised over a part of Abadi Deh. It was stand of the Gram Panchayat that the land underneath such construction is part of Shamlat deh. Though the learned trial Court decreed the suit by returning a finding that the Civil Court has a jurisdiction to entertain the suit, but the learned first Appellate Court returned a finding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit in view of the provisions of Sections 13 and 13-B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and consequently set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the suit.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that since the learned trial Court has decided Issue No. 4 as a preliminary issue and returned a finding on the question of a jurisdiction, no grievance was made by the Gram Panchayat against the said issue immediately after the same was decided on 7.5.1977 and, therefore, the Gram Panchayat was precluded from raising any such issue in appeal against the final judgment and decree. The said argument is not tenable in law, in terms of the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provide that the orders passed by the learned trial Court during the course of proceedings can be made subject matter of challenge in appeal. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat was competent to challenge the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on Issue No. 4 as a preliminary issue in final judgment and decree passed by the learned Court.

4. Admittedly, the question raised is whether the land in dispute is a Shamlat Deh or not. In view of the provisions of the Act, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred. Therefore, there is no error of law or fact in the findings of the learned first Appellate Court in holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

5. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal for the consideration of this Court. Hence the present appeal is dismissed.