Munnalal v. Mahendra Singh

1. Mahendra Singh S/o Laxman Singh, R/o Sarmathura, Tehsil Sarmathura, district Dholpur.

----Respondent/Plaintiff

2. Narendra Singh S/o Laxman Singh, R/o Sarmathura, Tehsil Sarmathura, district Dholpur.

3. Gram Panchayat, Sarmathura. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajkamal Gaur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 06/10/2025

Appellant-defendant No.1 has preferred this Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C., impugning the judgment dated

24.09.2024 passed in Civil First Appeal No.24/2017 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bari, District Dholpur to the extent of assailing the findings of Issue No.7 & 8 which have been decided against the appellant.

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-plaintiff pointed out that the second appeal is not maintainable at all. He submits that respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction before the Gram Nayalaya, Baseri, District Dholpur, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 07.03.2017. [2025:RJ-JP:40412] (2 of 3) [CSA-21/2025] Thereagainst respondent No.1 preferred an appeal as per Section 34 of the Gram Nayalaya Act, 2008. The appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 24.09.2024 by the Additional District Judge, Bari, District Dholpur and as per Section 34(6) of the Gram Nayalaya Act, 2008, the decision of District Judge is final and no appeal or revision lie thereagainst.

In addition, the submission of counsel for respondent No.1- plaintiff is that since appellant-defendant No.1 did not prefer any appeal against the findings of Issue No.7 & 8 passed by the Gram Nayalaya, Baseri, District Dholpur in its judgment dated

07.03.2017, hence, he cannot assail such findings by way of filing second appeal.

Heard. Considered. Section 34 of the Gram Nayalaya Act, 2008, reads as under: "34. Appeal in civil cases.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or any other law, and subject to sub-section (2), an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Gram Nyayalaya to the District Court. (2) No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order passed by the Gram Nyayalaya— (a) with the consent of the parties; (b) where the amount or value of the subject matter of a suit, claim or dispute does not exceed rupees one thousand; (c) except on a question of law, where the amount or value of the subject matter of such suit, claim or dispute does not exceed rupees five thousand. (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Gram Nyayalaya: Provided that the District Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the said period. (4) An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard and disposed of by the District Court within six months from the date of filing of the appeal. (5) The District Court may, pending disposal of the appeal, stay execution of the judgment or order appealed against. [2025:RJ-JP:40412] (3 of 3) [CSA-21/2025] (6) The decision of the District Court under sub- section (4) shall be final and no appeal or revision shall lie from the decision of the District Court: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall preclude any person from availing of the judicial remedies available under articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. "

Perusal of the above Section makes it clear that Sub-section (6) of Section 34, put an embargo to file an appeal or revision against the judgment passed by District Judge and that judgment has been held to be final, however, the judicial remedy as available to the aggrieved party under Article 32 & 236 of the Constitution of India has not been restricted.

In that view, counsel for appellant-defendant No.1, at the outset, seeks permission to withdraw the second appeal with liberty to prefer a civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court.

As far as, another objection of counsel for respondent No.1 is concerned, same shall remain open to be raised & considered in the writ petition, if filed by appellant.

All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. RONAK JAIMAN/14 (SUDESH BANSAL),J