DIWAN SINGH Vs. MAJOR RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.2.1999 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Rewari allowing the appeal of the plaintiff-respondents which was directed against the order dated 3.12.1997. The order dated 3.12.1997 was passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rewari on an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity the Code) which was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for deciding the controversy raised in the present petition are that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 who claimed to be Manager in the Swami Uma Bharti Public Senior Secondary Public School, Jhajjar Road, Rewari (for brevity the School), filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he was appointed as a Manager of the School by defendant- respondent No. 3 for a period of three years on a fixed salary of Rs. 2500/- per month. He further alleged that he joined his duties as a Manager but the Receiver, defendant-petitioner No. 2 and defendant-petitioner No. 1, Principal have been interfering in the performance of his duties. It is on the basis of these allegations that plaintiff-respondent sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendant-petitioners from interfering in the discharge of his duties as a Manager of the School. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was also filed for grant of permanent injunction praying to restrain the defendant-petitioners from interfering in the performance of his duties as a Manager and also restraining them from withholding his salary.

(3.) THE Civil Judge dismissed the application of the plaintiff-respondents vide order dated 3.12.1997 principally relying on the fact that in the earlier suit the prayer of the plaintiff-respondent for ad interim injunction was declined after hearing both the sides vide order dated 19.2.1996 and the suit was withdrawn thereafter on 5.6.1996 without seeking any permission to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Therefore, the present suit is considered to be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code. It was further held that this fact was not disclosed in the suit from which the present revision petition has arisen. The Civil Judge further opined that plaintiff-respondent failed to place on record any document to establish a prima facie case in his favour to show that he was appointed as Manager in the school by the competent authority. The Addl. District Judge on appeal reversed the order passed by the Civil Judge.