JUDGMENT

Malik, CJ. - On the 28th October, 1947, a suit was filed by Munshi Mithan Lal against the Municipal Board, Kairana 'through the Chairman, Municipal Board' aforesaid. The written statement on behalf of the Board was filed by the Secretary on the 6th February, 1948. The suit Was heard by the learned Munsif and it was decreed by him on the 25th October, 1948. An appeal against that decree was filed by the Municipal Board, Kairana 'through' the Chairman, Municipal Board, Kairana on the 20th November, 1948 The memorandum of appeal was signed by the Advocate on behalf of the Board. On the 4th December. 1948, the Chairman, Asha Ram wrote a letter to the Civil Judge, MuZaffarnagar, that the appeal had been filed under the instructions of the Secretary of the Board against the order of the Chairman and he had, therefore, instructed Sri Atma Nand Gupta, Advocate, to withdraw the appeal filed on behalf of the Board. An application to that effect under the signature of Asha Ram was filed before the learned Civil Judge on 18th December, 1948. On 5th January, 1949, the learned Civil Judge allowed the appeal to be withdrawn and directed the parties to bear their own costs.

2. In this Revision learned counsel has urged that the Chairman had no right to withdraw the appeal filed on behalf of the Board. Reliance is placed on Regulation 31 of the Regulations framed by the Municipal Board, Kairana, u/s 297(1) of the Municipalities Act, Act II of 1916. Regulation 31 is in these terms:

The power to institute, conduct or defend cases or to authorize any barrister, vakil, attorney, pleader or mukhtar for conducting or defending cases on behalf of the Board is delegated jointly and individually to the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and the Secretary of the Board.

3. Under this Regulation, therefore, any of these three officers has been given the power, jointly or individually, to act on behalf of the Board. I do not see how this Regulation can help the applicant From the facts already stated it is clear that the suit was filed against the Board through the Chairman' and the decree was passed against the Board 'through the Chairman'. The appeal was also filed on behalf of the Board 'through the Chairman' and it was, therefore, the Chairman 'who was representing the Board in the proceedings, though it may well be that it was the Secretary who was actually looking after the litigation in court.' Learned counsel Mr. Jagnandan Lal on behalf of the plaintiff opposite party has drawn my attention to Section 50 (d) and (e) of the Municipalities Act, 1916. The provisions referred to are as follows:

50. The following powers, duties and functions of a board may be exercised, and shall be performed or discharged, by the Chairman of the board and not otherwise, namely.

(d) Such of the powers, duties and functions referred to in third column of Schedule I as "are delegated by the Board u/s 112 to the Chairman ; and

(e) all other duties, powers and functions of a Board, with the exception of-

(i) where there is an executive officer. those vested in an executive officer, by Section 60 and where there is a medical officer of health, those vested in the medical officer of health by Section 60 A.

(ii) those specified in the second column of schedule 1; and

(iii) those delegated by the board u/s 112.

4. As the right to bring a suit or to defend an action against the Board does not come under any of these exceptions, the other duties, powers and functions, of the Board not mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) can be discharged by the President of the Board. It may be mentioned that this Municipal Board has no executive officer and ; therefore, the powers vested in that officer need not be considered. In view of these provisions and in view of the Beguiation quoted above it cannot be said that the Chairman had no power to withdraw the appeal which had been filed on behalf of the board through him.

5. The revision has no force and is dismissed. It is a, pity that in a public body like a M