A Municipal Committee can only act through resolutions and unless by a resolution it authorizes somebody to file an appeal on its behalf, no appeal could be presented on behalf of the Municipal Committee.

G.C.Mital, J.

1. In this Second Appeal, the counsel for the plaintiff- appellant has raised a point that the first appeal filed by respondent- Municipal Committee, before the lower appellate Court, against the decree of the trial court, decreeing plaintiffs suit was not competent inasmuch as no resolution was filed with the first appeal, either taking a decision for filing an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court for authorising a person to sign and file appeal on behalf of the Municipal Committee and therefore, he submits that on this short ground alone, this second appeal should be allowed and the appeal before the lower appellate court should be held incompetent thus setting aside judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and restoring those of the trial court.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit challenging the validity of Notice Exhibit P/1 dated May 31, 1974 issued by respondent-Municipal Committee under Section 172 of the Punjab Municipal Act, under which the plaintiff was directed to remove the encroachment within a period of three days failing which the same was to be removed at his expense, by the Municipal Committee. Prayer in the suit is for declaring the impugned Notice Exhibit P/1 as illegal and void and for permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Committee from demolishing the chappar raised by the plaintiff, on the site in dispute.

3. The Municipal Committee contested the suit on the ground that notice was valid in asmuchas the structure was raised on public street and could be ordered to be removed under section 172 of the Punjab Municipal Act. The following issues were framed in the case :-

(1) Whether the plaint is properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ?

(2) Whether the impugned Notice is void, illegal, capricious and ineffective ?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ?

4. The trial Court, by its judgment and decree June 1, 1976, decreed the suit holding the impugned Notice to be illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and ordered the issue of injunction as prayed for. With regard to issue No. 1, the plaintiff was directed to make up the court-fee which was done. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the Municipal Committee took an appeal before the District Court, which was heard by the Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge, by its judgment and decree dated November 24, 1977 allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit with costs throughout, holding that the plaintiff had encroached upon part of public street and as such the Notice is legal and valid.

5. Before me, counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has raised the first point that no competent appeal was presented by a competent person before the District Court, as no resolution, taking a decision to file an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court, was filed with the appeal nor any resolution authorising the Executive Officer who gave a wakalatnama to the Advocate, who presented the appeal, was attached to the appeal and therefore the filing and presentation of an appeal were unauthorised and in the absence of the resolutions, there was no proper appeal before the lower appellate court and as such the judgment and decree of the trial court could not be interfered with on the basis of the incompetent and properly presented appeal which deserves to be dismissed. In support of his argument, he relied on Bawa Bhagwan Das v. Municipal Committee Rupar through Sardar Sher Singh Executive Officer, A.I.R. 1943 Lah. 318, Punjab Agricultural University and others v. Messrs Walia Brothers, 1969 P.L.R. 257, The Municipal Committee, Ludhiana v. Surinder Kumar, 1970 C.L.J. 631 and The Municipal Committee Ludhiana v. Surinder Kumar, I.L.R. 1974 Pb. 420 and contended that two things had to be done by the Municipal Committee before filing the appeal :-

(i) There should have been