conduct of the former Sarpanch. A copy of the jamabandi for the year 2004-05 pertaining to the land in dispute has been produced on record indicating that the land in dispute is owned by the Gram Panchayat and in the remarks column, there is a reference of the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Jagraon, which decree is claimed by the defendant- petitioner to be collusive and indicative of a fraud having been played upon the Court by the parties to grab the land of Gram Panchayat. The impugned order closing the evidence of the defendant- petitioner (annexure P-1) dated January 20, 2009 and the judgment and decree dated January 21, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge can be challenged by the defendant- petitioner by filing an appeal before the District Judge, Ludhiana. So far as the order of closing of the evidence of defendant- petitioner vide order dated January 20, 2009 is concerned, it can always be challenged under Order 43 Rule 1A CPC in the main appeal which can be filed by the defendant- petitioner- Gram Panchayat. The circumstances of this case indicate that certain disputed questions of fact and law are required to be determined which exercise cannot be taken up by this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As such, on account of availability of alternative remedy, it is deemed appropriate and in the interest of justice to relegate the defendant- petitioner to the alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the District Judge, Ludhiana. The delay, if any, in filing of the appeal, will be condoned by the District Judge. It will be open to the defendant to file an application for amendment of the written statement, production of evidence and raise a plea of collusion or fraud having been
