UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANJAY JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellants -defendants under Sec. 96 of C.P.C. challenging the judgment and decree dt. 27.01.1997 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 392/95, whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit of the respondent -plaintiff and directed the appellants -defendants to pay Rs. 25,000/ - to the plaintiff. The short facts giving rise to the present case are that the respondent -plaintiff had filed the suit seeking damages alleging interalia that plaintiff was given license of Postal Agency J.P.C -14 by Jaipur City, Post Office, Jaipur and one Mr. Mukesh Godha was given the Postal Agency License J.P.C. -12. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was authorized to receive the commission on behalf of Mr. Mukesh Godha from City Post Office, Jaipur, in view of the power of attorney executed by Mr. Mukesh Godha. According to the respondent -plaintiff, he had already informed the department about the said authorization, however the appellant -defendant No. 2 vide the letter dt. 13.02.1992 asked the plaintiff to refund of amount of Rs. 1,22,096/ - which was allegedly received by him illegally from the department. The said allegations made against the plaintiff by the department caused mental agony and loss of reputation of the plaintiff, and therefore he had filed the suit seeking damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ - against the appellants -defendants. The suit was resisted by the appellants -defendants denying the allegations made in the plaint. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record decreed the suit of the respondent -plaintiff and directed the appellants -defendants to pay Rs. 25,000/ - by way of damages.

(2.) AT the outset it is required to be noted that though the decree under challenge is of 1997, the first appeal filed by the appellants -defendants remained pending at admission stage till this date. It also appears that in the meanwhile, the appeal was dismissed for default for long time and thereafter restored. Under the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of not prosecuting the same for so many years.