- (1.) C.M. No. 3956-C of 2012 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 16 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Thanesar, the same is allowed. Delay of 16 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. C.M. No. 3957-C of 2012 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the appeal. The reason assigned for the delay is that because of the mistake of the counsel, who has been engaged before the Court below, who delivered the judgment to the appellant at a belated stage, delay of 35 days in filing the appeal has occurred. The said delay is stated to be neither deliberate nor intentional and no benefit has been taken because of this by the applicant-appellant in the appeal. The application is duly supported by the affidavit of the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Thanesar. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 35 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. C.M. No. 3958-C of 2012 Prayer in this application is for impleading the legal representatives of deceased Dina Nath-respondent No. 4. It has been stated that respondent No. 4-Dina Nath has died during the pendency of the appeal. The details of the legal representatives are mentioned in para-2 of the application, out of which, his three sons, namely, Harish Kumar, Ashwani Kumar and Inderjit are already respondents to the appeal. Prayer has, thus, been made for impleading Smt. Surinder Bala-the widow as the legal representative of Dina Nath as respondent. The application is duly supported by the affidavit of the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Thanesar. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the present application is allowed. Smt. Surinder Bala is impleaded as legal representative of the deceased Dina Nath-respondent No. 4. The Memo of Parties appended along with the application is taken on record. RSA No. 1467 of 2012 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra dated 18.08.2010, whereby the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in plot measuring 280 Sq. Mts., as shown in plan P-1 in Khasra No. 221/48 Dara Kalan, Thanesar, as detailed in the suit and for further restraining the installation of tubewell in the suit land or from dispossessing the appellant-plaintiff forcibly without due process of law, has been decreed, appeal against which preferred by the Municipal Council, Thanesar has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra on 03.09.2011 primarily on the ground that the appeal filed by the Secretary of the Municipal Council, Thanesar is not maintainable as there is no resolution passed by the Municipal Council authorizing the Secretary to file the appeal.
(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that after issuance of notice in the appeal on 20.09.2010 for 06.12.2010, when the respondents put in appearance and sought time to file reply to the application and thereafter, further time was sought for filing reply, no objection was formally taken with regard to the maintainability of the appeal and the objection was raised at the time of the arguments, thus, the said objection could not have been taken into consideration by the Court below.
(3.) It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as per Resolution No. 9 dated 14.12.2009, which has been passed by the Municipal Council, Thanesar, the Secretary of the Municipal Council has been authorized to defend/initiate proceedings in any Court including an appeal and, therefore, in the light of the said resolution, the Secretary is the competent authority to file the appeal. He, thus, contends that the resolution of a corporate body being already passed merely because of the same has not been placed on record, cannot be a ground for holding that the appeal filed by the Secretary would not be maintainable. He contends that this Court in Municipal Corporation, Amritsar vs. Arjan Kumar, 1993 104 PunLR 582, Municipal Committee, Mandi Gobindgarh vs. M/s Dashmesh Steel Rolling Mills, 2006 2 RCR(Civ) 407, Grindlays Bank vs. Mikado Woollen Mills, 1984 86 PunLR 672, Punjab University vs. Satinder Parkash Srivastava, 2005 4 SCT 102, has held that the appeal is maintainable without a resolution. He, accordingly, prays that the impugned judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.;