Judgment

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/Punjab Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff-Board) against the judgment of the trial Court dated 22.08.1990, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff-Board for possession of agricultural land situated in the revenue estate of village Kutbewal, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi H.8 No.56 vide jamabandi 1982-83 Khewat No.147, Khatoni No.255, Khasra Nos.8//14/8-8, 15/8-8 total 16 kanals, has been dismissed. Challenge is also to the judgment dated 04.09.1992, vide which the appeal filed by the plaintiff-Board against the said judgment has been decided by rejecting the plaint filed on behalf of the plaintiff-Board under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-Board had filed a suit for possession on the plea that the plaintiff-Board was the exclusive owner of the suit land and the respondent-defendant/Chanan Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent-defendant”) had forcibly occupied the suit land belonging to the plaintiff-Board for the last eight years and the possession of the respondent-defendant was that of a trespasser and thus, the plaintiff-Board was entitled to seek possession of the same. It has further been averred in the plaint that the respondent-defendant had been requested several times to hand over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff-Board, but the respondent-defendant had been putting off the same on one pretext or the other and for the last one week he had flatly refused to accede to the genuine request of the plaintiff. On the basis of the said pleadings of the parties, the possession of the suit property was sought. The respondent-defendant filed written statement and had raised preliminary objections to the effect that the suit was not filed by an authorized person and that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. On merits, the ownership of the plaintiff-Board was not disputed, but it was stated that the respondent-defendant was in possession of the suit land as a tenant under the plaintiff-Board.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, two issues were framed, which have been reproduced herein below:-

“(1) Whether the defendant is cultivating the suit land as a tenant? OPD.

(2) Relief.”

4. The evidence was first led by the defendant since the onus of proving Issue No.1 was on the respondent-defendant and the respondent-defendant himself appeared in the witness box as DW-1. In rebuttal on behalf of the plaintiff-Board, Abdul Latif Khan, Estate Officer Punjab Wakf Board, Kapurthala had appeared and had stated that he had the authority to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff-Board and he tendered into evidence copy of jamabandi Ex.P1, Khasra girdawari Ex.P2 to 5, copy of notification Ex.P6. The trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence of the parties and the documents on record came to the conclusion that the respondent-defendant was not cultivating the suit land as a tenant under the plaintiff-Board and thus, decided Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff-Board and against the respondent-defendant. In para 7 of the judgment of the trial Court, it was observed that the plea taken by the respondent-defendant that he was a tenant of the suit land stood falsified from his own statement, inasmuch as, he admitted that he was not in possession of any Patnama from the plaintiff-Board, nor was he in possession of any receipt regarding the payment of rent and had further in his cross-examination stated that he had not filed any application before the plaintiff-Board for getting the suit land on rent and thus, the primary issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff-Board by the trial Court. However, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed solely on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 & 15 CPC, inasmuch as, it was observed that since the plaint did not bear the signatures of the officer authorized to file the same nor did the