TARSEM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts leading to this revision are that present petitioner Tarsem Lal had filed a suit for a declaraton that he was entitled to recover the amounts mentioned in the plaint. At that time he was posted at Bhatinda. Some amount claimed was said to be arrears of pay etc. for the period he was posted at Bhatinda. The learned trial Court at Bhatinda vide order dated 24th November, 1975 held that as the arrears of salary etc. for the period the plaintiff was posted at Bhatinda had been paid and the rest of the claim related the period when he was posted at Moga, therefore, no cause of action accrued to him within the territorial limits of that Court. Accordingly, it was ordered that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. Feeling aggrieved against that order, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was heard by learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda. He held that no part of the existing cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Bhatinda Civil Courts. Accordingly, the decision of the trial Court was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed on 24th April, 1978.

(2.) The plaintiff filed an application before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, for review of his order. He, vide detailed order dated 19th May, 1980 held that some mistake had occurred while passing the judgment dated 24th April, 1978 and held that part of the cause of action had accrued in Bhatinda. In view of that finding he allowed the review application and adjourned the case by remarking that the judgment and decree previously passed were to be reviwed in view of the facts brought on the file. It appears that thereafter Sh. Gurjit Singh Sandhu who had passed that order, was transferred and he was succeeded by Sh. N.S. Bhatia. He again held that no amount remaiend to be paid to the plaintiff for the period he was posted in Bhatinda. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved againsnt that order, the plaintiff has come to this Court in revision.

(3.) I am of the opinion that the order passed by Sh. N.S. Bhatia is without jurisdiction. His predcecessor had already allowed the review appliication filed by the plaintiff and had categorically held that part of cause of acton had arisen to the plaintiff at Bhatinda Sh. Bhatia was only to pass formal order about setting aside the earlier order and remanding the case to trial Court for further proceedings after accepting the appeal. Sh. N.S. Bhatia could not review the order passed on merits by his predecessor. The defendants had not filed any appeal or revision against the order by which review applciaton was allowed. Thus it had become final.