Back
2001 Supreme(P&H) 476
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L. Anand, J.
Gram Panchayat, Chaudhary Majra - Petitioner
Versus
Mandeep Singh - Respondents
Civil Revision No. 981 of 2001.
Decided On : 30 April, 2001
For the Petitioner:Mr. Arun Palli, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise decree based on the illegal authority of a person not authorized by a corporate body is a nullity, and the Executing Court has the power to go behind the decree.
Headnote:
Compromise - Jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 47 - Sadhu v. Gram Panchayat, Akalian, 1990 Civil Court Cases 94 (P&H) - State of Haryana through Collector, Hissar v. D.C.M. Hissar, 2001(1) RCR(Civil) 58 - Parduman Singh and another v. Narain Singh and another, 1991 Civil Court Cases 803 - Mewa Singh and others v. Dalip Singh and others, 1976 PLJ 291
Fact of the Case:
The civil revision was filed against the order dismissing objections under Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure of Gram Panchayat, Village Chaudhary Majra, regarding a decree passed on the basis of a compromise. The Gram Panchayat claimed that the compromise was illegal, null and void, and not binding on them as they had not authorized the Sarpanch to enter into the compromise.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Sarpanch was not authorized to enter into the compromise on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, and therefore, the decree based on the illegal authority was a nullity. The Court also held that the Executing Court had the power to go behind the decree.
Issues: The main issue was whether the compromise decree was binding on the Gram Panchayat when the Sarpanch was not authorized to enter into the compromise on their behalf.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the principle that corporate bodies can only act through resolutions, and in the absence of a resolution authorizing a particular person to act, the act or deed shall be deemed to be without any authority. The Court also considered the exceptions to the general rule that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, with the observation that it would be open to the Gram Panchayat to pass a fresh resolution in accordance with the law.
R.L. Anand, J. - This civil revision has been directed against the order dated 22.1.2001 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nabha, who dismissed the objections under Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure of Gram Panchayat, Village Chaudhary Majra.
2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Decree dated 15.6.1994 was passed by the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Nabha, in Civil Suit No. 22 dated 21.1.1994 tilted as Mandeep Singh v. Gram Panchayat" on the basis of a compromise which was effected between the parties through Beant Singh, the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. Decree holder filed execution application in the Executing Court and Gram Panchayat filed objections under Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure. It was pleaded by the Gram Panchayat that impugned judgment and decree passed on the basis of a compromise itself is illegal, null and void and is not binding on the Gram Panchayat as Gram Panchayat never authorised Beant Singh to enter into a compromise. In the absence of any authorisation in favour of Beant Singh, the alleged compromise on the basis of which the decree has been passed is patently illegal, null and void and cannot be enforced in the eyes of law. It was also pleaded by the Gram Panchayat that it never authorised Beant Singh, the then Sarpanch to admit the claim of the plaintiff. Moreover, the subject matter in the civil suit was wholly foreign to the jurisdiction of the said court and that Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree. It was also prayed by the Gram Panchayat that a fraud has been practiced on the Court and in these circumstances, the decree and judgment may be treated as null and void and the execution application may be dismissed.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the decree holders who filed reply and denied the allegations made against them.
4. According to the decree holders, Gram Panchayat passed the resolution dated 31.1.1994 and gave all powers qua the suit to the then Sarpanch Beant Singh. Moreover, in the year 1992, Baldev Singh, the present Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. On 12.9.1992, the Gram Panchayat under the chair of Baldev Singh, Sarpanch, passed a resolution for construction of a culvert on the phirni of the village for passing of the over-flowing water of the pond along with the link road going to village Kaul and for stopping said water from spreading and stagnating on the road. After taking permission of the BDPO, the culvert was duly constructed. The decree in question is nothing but a confirmation of the old position, which was confirmed by Shri S.S. Grewal, Advocate, of Nabha as a Local Commissioner in another suit qua the subject matter in question. The decree holder stated that the compromise is binding on the Gram Panchayat and the objections are abusing of process of law. It is also the stand of the Gram Panchayat that since Baldev Singh Sarpanch was a party to the resolution, therefore, he is barred from taking the objections. The parties advanced their arguments before the Executing Court and for the reasons given in para 5 of the impugned order, the objections of the Gram Panchayat were dismissed and aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.1.2001, the present revision has been filed by the Gram Panchayat.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, I have gone through the record of the case.
6. Before dealing with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, first of all, I would like to reproduce para 5 of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court :-
After giving careful thought to the submissions of both the sides, the Court finds merit in the argument of the counsel for the respondent-decree holder the decree under execution has neither been challenged so far nor its operation has been stayed by the Competent Court. Moreover, this decree has passed a compromise decree on the basis of defendant in the main suit. N
