STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. CHANDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by Shri Chander Singh, an Advocate of Bhilwara for Rs. 2000 on account of dama-ges for wrongful termination of his appointment as a Public Prosecutor on 15-5-1956 before the completion of the term of three years commencing from 1-1-1954 to 31-12-1956 for which he had been appointed. His case is that the defendant No. 2 Shri Purshottam Lal Sukhwal, who was the Collector and District Magistrate, Bhilwara was displeased with him and was favourably disposed to wards Shri Dalpat Singh, Advocate, also practising at Bhilwara and wanted to appoint Shri Dalpat Singh as Public Prosecutor in place of the plaintiff. It is alleged that Shri Sukhwal managed to get the plaintiff's appointment terminated by the Law Department, Government of Rajasthan and in pursuance of the orders issued by the latter, Shri Sukhwal directed the plaintiff to hand over the charge of his office as a Public Prosecutor to Shri Dalpat Singh with effect from 11-5-1956. THE plaintiff's allegation is that Shri Sukhwal had managed to get his appointment as Public Prosecutor terminated before the expiry of his term on account of malice and ill will he bore towards the plaintiff He, therefore, filed the present suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 2000.

(2.) THE suit was resisted both by the State of Rajasthan as well as Shri Sukhwal who filed separate written statements. THE trial court namely the Civil Judge, Bhilwara decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 550 only. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court both the defendants as well as the plaintiff filed appeals in the Court of the District Judge, Bhilwara. Both the appeals were dismissed by the learned District Judge by his judgment dated 11-8-1964. THE plaintiff has not filed any appeal to this Court as he felt content with the decree for Rs. 550 granted by the trial court and upheld by the learned Distt Judge, Bhilwara. But the State of Rajasthan and Shri Sukhwal have filed this second appeal.

(3.) ON a careful reading of the order of the District Judge, Bhilwara dated 21-1-1964 it appears that the learned District Judge virtually dismissed the appeal so far as the appellant Shri Sukhwal was concerned and held that the appeal would be treated as one on behalf of State of Rajasthan only. The law is clear on the point that so far as the defendants are concerned the suit can be decided against them piece meal and may be dismissed at an interim stage against one of the defendants when there are two or more, and may be proceeded with against the rest. An order striking off the names of one or more defendants has been held to amount to a 'decree' in case it conclusively determines the rights between the parties. There is no direct case brought to my notice by either party that where there are two or more plaintiffs the suit on behalf of one of then may be held to have been not maintainable and as such the name of such a plaintiff has been ordered to be struck off. But the possibility of such an order being passed cannot be excluded in view of the provisions of O. 1, r. 10 C. P. C. which provides for substitution or addition of any person as plaintiff, and striking out the name of any party improperly joined whether as plaintiff or defendant. Thus on a parity of reasoning, an order directing that one of the appellants shall not be treated as an appellant in the case and the appeal be treated as an appeal on behalf of the other appellant or appellants only must be held to amount to a decree qua that appellant as such an order in substance determines the right of that appellant to maintain the appeal, and is, therefore, appealable as much.