UNION OF INDIA Vs. AMRUT KAUR HAVASINGH RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Application No.14106 of 2017 (New No.3 of 2017) has been filed by the applicants - original appellants, seeking condonation of delay of 1226 days occurred in filing the Civil Application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the original respondent Havasingh Suratsingh Rana, who had expired on 26.3.2014, on the record of Second Appeal No.7 of 2003.

(2.) The Civil Application No.14108 of 2017 (New No.4 of 2017) has been filed, seeking condonation of delay of 1226 days occurred in filing Civil Application for setting aside of the abatement of Second Appeal No.7 of 2003 occurred on account of the death of the sole respondent Havasingh Suratsingh Rana on 26.3.2014.

(3.) The short facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the present applications are that the original respondent Havasingh Suratsingh Rana had filed the Regular Civil Suit No.744 of 1990 challenging the order dated 14.6.1989 passed by the disciplinary authority of the appellants (original defendants). The said suit was decreed by the 8th Jt. Civil Judge, S.D., Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court) vide the judgement and decree dated 12.4.1999, whereby the defendants were directed to reinstate the plaintiff within three months from the date of the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said judgement and decree, the appellants (original defendants) had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.39 of 1999 before the Assistant Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate Court"). Pending the said appeal, the execution and implementation of the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court was stayed by the appellate Court. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the appellate Court vide the judgement and decree dated 30th September, 2002, against which the appellants had preferred the Second Appeal before this Court along with the application for stay. The Second Appeal being No.7 of 2003 was admitted on 8.10.2003 on the substantial questions of law framed by the Court and the judgement and decree passed by the appellate Court also came to be stayed pending the Second Appeal. As a result thereof the respondent (original plaintiff) was not reinstated in service.