A.D.Koshal, J. - (1.) SEVEN residents of village Goh in Tehsil Samrala, District Lud liana instituted the suit out of which this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises, against the Gram Panchayat of that village which was sued through its Sarpanch. Claiming that the Sarpanch had colluded with the Plaintiffs, four members of the Defendant Panchayat filed an application before the trial Court with the prayer that they be permitted to contest the suit. That application was dismissed by the trial Court through the impugned order, the relevant observations made in which may be quoted in extenso: I find that an attested copy of the resolution duly attested by Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat has been filed on behalf of the Defendant Gram Panchayat to the effect that Ajaib Singh Sarpanch would be prosecuting all suits which may be filed by or against the Gram Panchayat. In terms of Rule 16 or the Rules, framed under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, this document is sufficient to prove the fact that the Gram Panchayat has delegated the power to prosecute the proceedings to the Sarpanch, This application is not maintainable under any provision of the Gram Panchayat Act, though it purports to have been made under the same Act. In view of all this, the present application is not maintainable and is, therefore, dismissed.
(2.) RULE 16 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, lays down: 16. (1) The Panchayat shall, by a resolution to be recorded in the proceeding book, appoint its Sarpanch or any other Panch to contest any suit filed by or against the Panchayat. The Sarpanch or Panch so appointed shall file a copy of the resolution duly attested by the Sarpanch under the seal of the Panchayat in the Court along with other documents. (2) The actual expenditure incurred is the defence of the case shall be chargeable to the funds of the Panchayat. (3) The Sarpanch or Panch so appointed shall not be competent to compound or admit claim of the party suing the Panchayat without proper authorization by the Panchayat by a resolution in writing passed in a meeting specifically called for the purpose. If any decree or order is passed by the Court as a result of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment of facts or collusion with the opposite party, the Sarpanch shall be personally liable for the loss caused to the Panchayat. It it no doubt true that this rule authorizes a Panchayat to appoint the Sarpanch or a Panch to contest any suit filed against it but that does not mean that the panches themselves cannot perform the same function which they are authorized to delegate. The Sarpanch, when appointed to contest a suit, acts as their agent and there is no principle of law which bars the conduct of a suit by a party in person even though that party has appointed another to conduct the suit on his behalf. In spite of the resolution, therefore, from which the Sarpanch draws his authority to defend the suit, the Panches are not debarred from putting in the defence themselves. It is to be noted that a Panchayat is not a body corporate and cannot, therefore, sue or be sued as such. If a suit is brought against it, it has to be one in which the Sarpanch and Panches are all arrayed as parties, There is no question of there being any provision in the Gram Panchayat Act. In support of the maintainability of the application which the trial Court dismissed. The law on the point has to be derived from the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which authorizes only person a natural or juridical to be parties to suits. The addition of the members of the Panchayat as party Defendants would thus not only be proper but eminently called for. In the result the petition succeeds and is accepted. The impugned order is set aside and the application made by the Petitioners to the trial Court for permission to defend the suit is allowed. Their names shall be added as party Defendants. No costs.;