Ajit Singh Bains, J. - (1.) RISAL Singh Appellant has filed this regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated March 8, 1971 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree dated August 10, 1970 of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Rohtak.
(2.) THE facts of the case are not disputed. Risal Singh, Plaintiff -Appellant, was the Sarpanch and Chairman of the Gram Sabha, Saidpur, during the relevant period and was suspended on account of certain allegations levelled against him. It is alleged that during his tenure as Sarpanch and Chirman, he leased out some shamlat land, but did not make any attempt to recover the lease money from the lessee. Subsequently, while he was holding office of Sarpanch, some land of the Gram Panchayat was also exchanged with that of one Dhani Ram. The Panchayat thus suffered loss due to neglect and misconduct of the Plaintiff -Appellant in his capacity as its Sarpanch. On the move of the representative of Gram Panchayat, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, exercising the powers of District Panchayat Officer under Section 105 of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was deputed to assess the loss suffered by the Gram Panchayat. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, after due enquiry and giving an opportunity of explaining to the Appellant, assessed the loss suffered by the Panchayat at Rs. 12,308, vide his order dated September 29, 1966. Thereafter the Appellant filed an appeal before the Assistant Director, Panchayat, who, - -vide his order dated August 30, 1968 maintained the assessment of Rs. 2,042 for loss of lease money and Rs. 10,000 for exchange of shamlat land. Aggrieved by the abovesaid assessment orders, the Appellant filed a civil suit against the Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, and Assistant Director of Panchayats. In their written statements, the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat had denied the allegations made in the plaint and pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The trial Court framed as many as four issues but the material issue for the purpose of this appeal is issue No. 4, which is in the following words: Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? The trial Court decided the issue against the Appellant and held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of both the Courts blow.
(3.) MR. S. C. Kapoor, learned Counsel for the Appellant, has contended that since there is no express bar under the Gram Panchayat Act, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and that the Courts below have erred in law in dismissing the Plaintiff -Appellant's suit on this ground alone. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on Sri Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple v. Induru Pattabhirami Reddi : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 781 and Musamia Imam Haider Bax Razvi v. Rabari Govindhai Ratnabhai and Ors., A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 489. Mr. J. S. Malik, learned Counsel for the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat, has contended that there is no merit in the arguments of Mr. S, C. Kapoor as the Civil Court's jurisdiction is expressly and impliedly excluded to adjudicate upon such matter. In his support, he has relied upon Darshana Nand v. The State of Punjab and Ors., 1969 P.L.J. 134.;