BHARAT PRASAD SAHI Vs. CHANDRIKA SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application was earlier heard on the 7th Dec., 1982. At that stage nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The application was, however, allowed in part. An application for reviewing the said order was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 16.3.1983 on the ground that the petitioner's lawyer Shri B.K. Pandey having joined the Bihar Judicial Service the case was heard ex parte and, therefore, the matter should be re-heard. The review application was allowed and the revisional application has been heard afresh.

(2.) The petitioner is the Headmaster of Uma Shankar High School, Maharajganj. A dispute arose between the petitioner and two Assistant Teachers (Opposite Party) of the school over certain matters resulting in a proceeding under Sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the like. The petitioner reported to the District Education Officer against the said Assistant Teachers, and for their transfer to some other school. The petitioner annoyed by the opposite party directed them to report for duty to the District Education Officer, Siwan, for getting themselves adjusted in some other school. This order was challenged by them in a title suit in the court of the Second Munsif, Siwan, for restraining the petitioner from putting any interference in their working in the school in question. A temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from putting any interference in the working of the Assistant Teachers was also passed in the suit on 25.9.1981.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the said order in the court of the District Judge, but as there was is received back by the Court with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the defendant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the postal article containing the summons, when tendered to him, the court issuing the summons shall declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendant: Provided that where the summons was properly addressed, prepaid and duly sent by registered post, acknowledgement due, the declaration referred to this sub-Rule shall be made not with standing the fact that the acknowledgement having been lost or mislaid, or for any other reason, has not been received by the Court within thirty days from the date of the issue of the summons. no regular District Judge,, the In charge District Judge refused to take up the admission matter of the miscellaneous appeal.