' This judgment will dispose of the following revision petitions as common questions of law and facts are involved:-.
(1) Civil Revision No, 326 of 1983.
(2) Civil Revision No, 327 of 1983
(3) Civil Revision No, 328 of 1983
(4) Civil Revision No, 329 of 1983 and
(5) Civil Revision No, 330 of 1983.
2. The petitioner in the connected revision petitions brought separate suits seeking permanent injunction. Against the Land Acquisition Collector and the Province of the Punjab. The petitioners wanted to raise buildings on the properties in dispute and claim to have secured permission of the competent authority in this regard. The Court sommoned the defendants. A Patwari appeared for the Land Acquisition Collector, but the province was not served and nobody appeared on their behalf. This was the position between 1-4-1979 and 17-5-1979, during which period the suits were listed about half a dozen times. On 17-5-1979 the Court marked the attendance of the Patwari on behalf of both the defendants. Subsequently, on 4-7-1979, on the failure of the defendants to file written statements a judgment was pronounced. The defendants moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. But his application was rejected on 2-9-1979. This order was challenged by the defendants/respondents in appeal, which was allowed by a learned Addtional District Judge on 20-1-1981. He permitted the defendants to file the written statements. The petitioners challenged the orders in review, but the application was rejected on 6-12-1982 on grounds of limitation. This brings the petitioners to the High Court seeking revision of the orders of the learned Additional District Judge.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the orders of the trial Court, dated 4-7-1979 amounted to a decree and the decree could not be set aside in collateral proceedings in which the defendants had challenged the orders of the trial Court rejecting their application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants/respondents has, however, stated that the orders dated 4-7-1979 are not better than a scrap of paper as the Province of the Punjab had never been served and had never appeared. There was, therefore, no question of default on the part of the Province in filing of the written statement. It has also been urged on behalf of the Province of the Punjab that sufficient time was not granted to the government as visualised by rule 5 of Order XXVII, C.P.C.
4. I have gone through the record of the proceedings maintaine by the trial Court. The summons were issued to both the defendants, namely the Province of the Punjab and to the Land Acquisition Collector, but only Nazir Ahrnad, Patwari appeared on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector. This Patwari was also shown to have appeared for the provinc from 17-5-1979 onwards, but this was neither justified nor lawful. Unde Rule 4 of Order XXVII, C.P.C. Only the Government Pleader could b the agent of the Government and not the Patwari. The trial Court erre in law in deciding that the Patwari also represented the Province o the Punjab. It is clear, therefore, that there was no question of defaul on the part of the Province of the Punjab in filing the written statement. The proceedings also show a certain amount of hurry on the part o the trial Court. The suits were disposed of within a period of thre months. This had been the cause of the illegalities committed by it. Reasonable time should have been given to the Government, which wa the main defendant in the suit and care should have been taken to se whether the parties are properly represented. The orders of 4-7-1979, therefore, could not be sustained under any circumstances. The learned Additional District Judge has set the records straight and in doing s has committed no illegality. Even on general principle, the controvers between the parties should best the resolved on its own merits rathe than on technicalities.
5. I find no merit in the revision petitions. These are dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.