MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY ROHTAK Vs. JITENDER SINGH LAURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I am disposing of two revision petitions bearing C.R. Nos. 4316 and 4317 of 1997 as the facts and point of law involved in both the cases are identical. For the purpose of this case, the facts of C.R. No. 4316 of 1997 have been taken.

(2.) This petition (C.R. No. 4316 of 1997) has been directed against the order dated 19-7-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak. By this order, the learned Additional District Judge has held that the appeal filed by the petitioner-University is not maintainable as the said appeal was filed by the Registrar who has not been authorised by the competent authority (Executive Council) to file the appeal. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.

(3.) Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned lower appellate Court while passing the impugned order has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Punjabi University v. M. R. Garg, 1996 (1) 112 Pun LR 484, but the said judgment itself has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 14568 of 1996* and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reproduced in para 5 of the grounds of revision. He further submits that in any case, the Executive Council during the pendency of the appeal itself, has passed a resolution dated 30-11-1996 authorising the Registrar to file a suit/appeal on behalf of the University. The learned counsel further submits that in any case, the appeal filed by the petitioner-University was against an interlocutory order passed by the learned trial Court and as such no fresh authorisation was necessary to be given in favour of the Registrar for filing the appeal. In support of this submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the Punjab University, Patiala v. Laljit Singh, 1996 (2) 113 Pun LR 450.*Reported in (1997) 10 SCC 424