SATPAL Vs. THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is in second appeal, against the judgment of reversal, whereby the Learned District Judge, Rohtak allowed the appeal filed by the defendants/respondents vide judgment and decree dated 10.05.1990 and consequently, reversed the findings of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak whereby suit for mandatory and permanent injunction was decreed by him vide its judgment dated 25.08.1989. In brief, facts of the case are that on 19.5.1988 plaintiff/appellant Sat Pal filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents with the allegations that one Smt. Kulwant Malhi was working as Nurse and was selected to get training for tutor in the year 1973 and for that purpose she had executed a bond for Rs. 21,000/ - and had undertaken to serve the State of Haryana for a period of 3 to 5 years and in case of default, she was to pay Rs. 21,000/ - to the State. It was further alleged that defendant no. 3/State of Haryana had issued a letter dated 8.6.87 to the Accounts Officer by alleging therein that plaintiff was one of the sureties to that bond and that said Smt. Kulwant Malhi was neither joining the services nor replying to the various letters addressed to her and as such a sum of Rs. 100/ - per month be deducted from the salary of plaintiff Sat Pal and Rs. 250/ - from salary of Sujan Singh. It is this letter which has been challenged by the plaintiff as being illegal and void without jurisdiction on the grounds that have been enumerated in para 3 of the plaint, especially the ground that plaintiff Sat Pal was only a witness to the said bond and even if he was proved to have signed the bond in any other capacity, even then the plaintiff was not liable to make any payment towards the said bond. Thus the present suit was filed.

(2.) UPON notice, all the material averments were denied by defendants and it was stated that plaintiff had stood surety for Smt. Kulwant Malhi and as such he was equally liable for the amount of bond executed by Smt. Kulwant Malhi and defendants were competent to recover the said amount from the plaintiff. The impugned letter dated 8.6.87 was pleaded to be perfectly valid and under due authority. Remaining averments were denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant and have also gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance.