IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B.CIVIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.510/2011 DR. RAIZADA PRAKASH NARAIN SAKSENA ...PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN ...DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT DATE OF JUDGMENT:- NOVEMBER 1, 2011 HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M.TRIVEDI Mr. Sunil Samdaria, counsel for the appellant, BY THE COURT
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. In this appeal it appears that the decree dated 10th of April 2002 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ajmer, in Civil Suit No. 268/2001 (68/88), has been sought to be challenged, whereby the trial court had dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that though the appeal was filed in the year 2002, it remained pending in the office for about nine years, as the application of the appellant seeking permission to file appeal as an indigent person was not disposed of. The said application of the appellant under Order 33 Rule 1 came to be allowed by the Court on 24th August 2011 and thereafter the appeal has been put up for admission/hearing today. It is very surprising that neither the appellant nor the counsel for the appellant had ever bothered to move the office for the disposal of the application pending under Order 33 Rule 1 for about nine years.
3. Be that as it may, so far as the merits of the appeal are concerned, it appears from the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court that appellant was appointed by the respondent on 27th July 1960 and was dismissed from service on 26.3.1961. The said order of dismissal was challenged by the appellant by filing Civil Suit being No. 17/1962 in the Court of Civil Judge Ajmer, which came to be decreed by the Court on 29th July 1969. The said decree was challenged by the respondent State Govt. by filing appeal before the District Court which was dismissed on 18.5.1972. The Second Appeal being No.643/72 filed by the State Govt. was also dismissed by the High Court on 18.3.1982, whereby the order of dismissal from service passed by the respondent was declared null and void, however, no relief for payment of arrears of salary was granted by the Court. It further appears that in the meantime the appellant kept on filing the Civil Suits being Nos. 71/72, 7/76, 124/81 and 122/1985, praying for the payment of the salary, though the appeals against the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 17/62, before the District Court and High Court were pending. The appellant again filed the present suit being No. 68/88 (268/2001) seeking arrears of salary from May 1985 to July 1988 under the guise of the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 17/62.
4. The trial court considering the evidence on record observed that the suit filed by the appellant was not maintainable as the appellant-plaintiff instead of filing execution proceedings for the execution of the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 17/62 had kept on filing suits one after the other. The trial court also observed that though the decree had become final on 18.3.1982 as per the order passed by the High Court, the suit was filed in 1988 seeking arrears of salary for the period May 1985 to July 1988, though no such relief was granted and as such was not maintainable in view of the earlier suits filed by the plaintiff. The trial Court also considered the undisputed position that the appellant-plaintiff had never served the respondents-defendants after the passing of the decree in Civil Suit 17/62 till the filing of the suit, and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
5. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The learned counsel for the appellant has also failed to point out any infirmities in the said decree passed by the Trial Court. There being no substance in the present appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed in limine. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine.
(BELA M.TRIVEDI)J.
ij
