who was duly authorized to depose and prosecute the case. A perusal of the cross-examination shows that he was not knowing regarding this Rapat of the Patwari. Rather, he specifically stated that after the order passed by the High Court in the year 1982, they did not move to any Court of laws for taking possession of the suit property. They neither filed any execution application for taking possession nor filed any suit. Volunteered since they were already in possession. There was no necessity for them to apply for possession of the suit property. All this cross-examination shows that PW-1, who was duly authorized by the Managing Committee of the plaintiffschool, was not knowing regarding this Rapat No.192. Otherwise, there was no reason or ground to conceal that document, which is most material document and goes in favour of the plaintiff. So, there is nothing to disbelieve PW-1 that at the time of producing the evidence, he was having knowledge regarding this Rapat No.192. If this fact is mentioned in the replication and no evidence has been produced by the plaintiff, when the plaintiff was producing the evidence, then it is the gross-negligence of the counsel for the plaintiff. It is settled law that for the gross-negligence of the counsel for the party, it should not suffer. It is clear from the record that the dispute is not between two persons. Rather, the plaintiff is Shri Layalpur Sanatan Dharam High School and the Gram Panchayat is the defendant.
