STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JAGAN NATH CHHICHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal raises an interesting legal point which is so unique that no direct authority could be cited by the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE suit from which this appeal has arisen was instituted as far back as the year 1959. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the order elated the 1st August, 1957, passed by the State Bank of Patiala posting him as an Accountant in its branch at Narnaul de f rading him from the post of Manager ol Kasauli Branch was illegal, mala fide and ultra vires. In addition to claiming some house-rent allowance, he also prayed for a declaration that the withholding of the plaintiffs promotion from 1-1-1952 was illegal, mala fide and an act of discrimination and that he was entitled to promotion to that grade from the aforesaid date. The plaintiff also challenged the order of his premature compulsory retirement dated the 7th June, 1958. contending that it was void and that the plaintiff still continued to be in service. A money claim as regards arrears of salary and future salary, which would accrue to him, was also made. The defendant was initially the State of Punjab and subsequently the State Bank of Patiala was also joined. The defendants re- sisted this suit and at many as 15 issues were framed.

(3.) IN the course ol trial of the suit an application was made by the plaintiff for the issue of interrogatories to the defendants and the trial Court ordered the issue of notice of the application to the other side on the 14th July, 1960. However, the interrogatories were not answered and on the 22nd August, 1960. the plaintiff filed an application praying that the defence of the defendants be struck off for the defendants' non-compliance. Eventually, by an order dated the 8th August, 1961, the trial Court struck off the defence of the defendants on the ground that reply to the interrogatories had not been put in though several adjournments had been granted for the purpose. The defendants appealed against that order and (vide his order dated the 20th February, 1962), the Additional District Judge, Ambala (at patiala), dismissed the appeal and held that it was not competent in his Court. The defendants then approached the High Court which by its judgment dated the 8th april, 1962, allowed the appeal and set aside the order striking off their defence subject, however, to the payment of Rs. 100 as conditional costs. These costs in the High Court were even not paid before the due date and so the trial Court by its order dated the 18th May, 1962, held that its earlier striking off the defence of the defendants subsisted. This order was again challenged in the High Court in appeal as well as Letters Patent Appeal but with no success. The copy of the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench dated the 27th February. 1963, has been placed on the record.