D.S.Tewatia, J. - (1.) JEE Ram, petitioner, was elected Sarpanch to the Gram Panchayat, Dhanuda, in the year 1971. Nine Panches including the petitioner constituted the said Panchayat. Five of the Panches, who are arrayed as respondents 4 to 8, obtained approval of the Director of Panchayats (respondent No. 1) in terms of section 9 (2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for convening the extraordinary general meeting of the Panchayat to take up for consideration a motion of no -confidence against the Sarpanch, i.e., the petitioner. On September 26, 1973, the said five Panches, i.e., respondents 4 to 8 convened the meeting of the Panchayat in terms of section 14 sub -section (2) of the Act. The meeting was presided over by one of the respondents and the resolution expressing no -confidence in the petitioner was passed with a majority of 5:4. That resolution was transmitted to the Director of Panchayats, respondent No. 1, who vide his order dated December 10, 1973 (Annexure P. 1), accorded approval thereto and directed the holding of fresh election of the Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat on March 6, 1974. The petitioner on coming to know of the said order filed a civil suit and obtained a temporary injunction on February 7, 1974. That injunction was vacated by the Court on February 21, 1974 and thereafter 6th of March 1974, was fixed for holding election to the office of Sarpanch. This led to the filing of the present petition on March 5, 1974. The Court declined to grant injunction against the holding of the meeting scheduled to take place on March 6, 1974. In the said election, the petitioner tried his luck but was defeated by 5 : 4 votes.
(2.) THE sole question that falls for determination is as to whether the meeting in which resolution expressing no -confidence in the petitioner was passed, was legally convened or not. However, before proceeding with the consideration of the question posed, I may at this stage, take notice of preliminary objections raised by Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the respondents.
(3.) THE learned counsel basing himself on two D.B. decisions of this Court - -one reported as Attar Singh and others v. State of Haryana (sic), and the other Ram Nath v. Ramesh,, 1972 98 PLR 619 urged that the petitioner having taken chance in the fresh election and having failed therein is estopped from coming to this Court and pose a challenge to the fresh election in which respondent No. 7 was declared elected as a Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. The second preliminary objection taken by him is to the effect that the civil suit filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by the civil Court on April 10, 1974, the order passed there in would operate, as res judicata to the present proceedings.;