Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 Hapu instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 30/- plus 9/- as interest before the Gram Panchayat of Bar on the allegation that he was a co-cultivator with Hanoot in respect of a certain land but on the partnership in cultivation having been put to an end it was agreed that Hanot will pay Rs. 60/- to Hapu for the cost of manure and labour spent on improving the land. The defendant traversed the allegation. The plaintiff produced witnesses in support of his claim, one such witness being Mugna. The Gram Panchayat gave a decree for 30/- to the plaintiff by judgment of 25. 9. 52. The defendant Hanoot filed an appeal urging as one of the grounds that Mugna who appeared as a witness for the plaintiff was also one of the Panchas who decided the case. He urged that a member of the tribunal could not be a witness as also a judge in the cause. The Tehsil Panchayat, rejected his appeal on 29. 4. 58. The defendant filed a revision and the same objection was repeated. The learned District Judge, rejected his revision on 25th September, 1958. Hanoot has filed this application on 9. 12. 58 and two contentions are raised on his behalf - (1) That the suit was not within the cognizance of the Gram Panchayat, and (2) That Mugna being a witness could not sit on the Panchayat which decided the case. The first objection is not correct. Under section 18 of the Marwar Village Panchayat Act, 1945, which applied on the date of the institution of the suit, suits for asserted sums of money could be tried by the Panchayat. The present suit was of that kind. The second objection is however more serious. Sec. 51 of the Act provides that no Panch, who is a party to, or personally interested in, any suit or case, shall sit on the Panchayat which takes cognizance of such suits or case. The words "personally interested" do not mean only that the Panch should have pecuniary interest in the case but ate wide enough to debar a Panch from judging the cause in which he himself is a witness. The decision of the Panchayat in which Mugna also participated and in which he is a signatory to the decision is illegal. The decision of the Gram Panchayat, Bar dated 25. 9. 52 of the Tehsil Panchayat dated 29. 4. 58 and that of the District Judge dated 25. 9. 58 are set aside. The petitioner will get his costs from Hapu in respect of the present petition. The Gram Panchayat of Bar or its successor will deal with the suit according to law and Mugna will not sit in the tribunal if he is still one of the Panchas. .;