R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 17.5.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Sangrur, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC for the following reasons as given in para 9 of the impugned order :- "9. The learned trial court has rightly observed that the plaintiffs who are 60 have not produced any evidence regarding the possession of any milch animal or regarding the disposal of its dead body at their own end. Even in appeal the appellants have annexed affidavits of 8 plaintiffs who own and possess the animals. There are other 52 plaintiffs and there is no evidence that they are owning any animal. Present litigation on the face of it is hypothetic. The case of the plaintiff is that in case an animal dies, they remained the owner of the dead body including carcasses. The legal right of the plaintiffs is not disputed but the facts of the case are that after close of the Govt. Centre for treating with the carcasses, the plaintiffs are continuing their business at that very place. The number of the plaintiffs joining hands in this respect prima-facie proves that they are doing business of treating skin. Moreover, during the course of arguments it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that after removing skin of the dead body these are disposed of after treating the same. It is not the case where the plaintiffs claim that they have right to bury the dead body according to their own wishes rather it is case where the plaintiff continued under Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malerkotla. In Bal Kishan's case (supra) it has been held that the successful bidder has no right to animals whose dead bodies the owner wants to dispose of. In the present case the plaintiffs are not disposing of the dead bodies of their own animals but they are doing business of removing skin of the animals and claim that they are doing it with their own animals. The presentation of the affidavits in the appellate Court is an after-thought, therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned trial Court. Moreover, in Bal Kishan's case (supra) the petitioners in the writ petition had claimed that they are disposing of the dead bodies by burying them under the ground. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs. File be consigned."
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, who invited my attention to Section 168 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and submitted that whenever any animal in the charge of any person dies otherwise than by slaughter either for sale or for some religious purpose, the person in charge thereof shall within twenty-four hours either convey the carcass to a place (if any) fixed by the committee under Section 154 for the disposal of the dead bodies or animals or to any place at least one mile beyond the limits of the municipality. As per these provisions, for a period of 24 hours the property i.e. skin of the animal, its muscles, meat and carcass can be retained by the in charge of the animal and thereafter the municipality has the right to remove the same in order to avoid any nuisance. For a period of 24 hours, the Municipality cannot touch the dead animal and, therefore, the plaintiff/petitioners have the right to retain the dead animals for a period of 24 hours from the time of their death. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that both the Courts fell in error while declining the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the petitioners. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents have adopted the reasons given by the Courts below which have dismissed the application and have prayed that this revision should also be dismissed.
(3.) I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and am of the considered opinion that this revision is devoid of any merit. So far as the right of the petitioners to retain the dead animal for 24 hours from the time of its death is concerned, it is not disputed. But the intentions of the petitioner-plaintiffs are otherwise. Under the garb of the application they want to do their business of skins by bringing the dead animals from different places and to keep those dead animals at Hadda-Rori. Also there is no satisfactory evidence prima facie to show that the plaintiffs possess any milch cattle etc. An injunction which is not enforceable should not and cannot be granted in favour of the petitioners. In these circumstances, this revision petition stands disposed of with the direction to the trial Court to conclude the evidence of the plaintiffs within six months and try to dispose of the suit within nine months from the receipt of the copy of the order.;