LAWS(RAJ)-2012-2-43

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. G S SIDHU

Decided On February 29, 2012
RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA Appellant
V/S
G.S. SIDHU I.A.S. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant-applicant under Or. XLIII R. 1(r) of C.P.C. against the order dated 15.10.97, passed by the A.D.J. No. 4, Jaipur City,Jaipur, in Misc. Application No.50/93, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the application of the appellant-applicant filed under Or. XXXIX Rule 2(A) of C.P.C. (2)THE short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant original plaintiff had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants with regard to his transfer order and other reliefs. THE appellant had also filed an application under Or. XXXIX R. 1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from transferring the appellant-plaintiff, who was working on the post of Chief Time Keeper at Kota to Hindon pursuant to the said transfer order. THE said T.I. Application was dismissed by the Trial Court, against which the appellant had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. THE Appellate Court had allowed the said appeal, against which the respondents had preferred the Revision Petition being No. 1107/93, before this Court. In the said Revision Petition, this Court passed the following order on 13.9.1994:- THE petitioner Corporation transferred the respondent from Kota to Hindon and the respondent filed a civil suit to challenge that transfer order. He also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction for stay of transfer order, which was dismissed by the trial court. But the injunction was granted by the first Appellate Court. This revision petition is filed against that order by the Corporation.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for plaintiff-respondent states that the Corporation itself has cancelled the transfer order, vide its order dated 22.2.94. With the result the suit and the revision petition have become infructuous, so far as the transfer matter is concerned. LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff-respondent says that some other relief have also been claimed in the suit, so the suit will go on with regard to other reliefs.