RAM KUMAR GOYEL Vs. BHUWAN SINGH PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE all the above Miscellaneous Applications arise out of similar facts and raise identical questions of law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) ALL the above applications have been filed by one Shri R. K. Goyel, resident of jorthang, South Sikkim and two (2) others u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 510 days in filing appeals under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decrees dated 15-12-2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Special Division-II at Gangtok in Civil Suit Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of 2002.

(3.) IT is not necessary to narrate facts of the case in detail for the purpose of disposing of the present applications. Suffice it to say that the Civil Suits Nos. 1 of 1992, 2 of 1992, 3 of 1992, 4 of 1992, 5 of 1992 and 6 of 1992 filed by each of the respondents separately in the Court of the Ld. Civil Judge, (E) at Gangtok, for declaration that he was a Government employee and not private employee of sikkim Food Preservation Factory, singtam, under the management of the Applicants/appellants at the relevant time, that the letter of appointment issued by the applicants/appellants was bad in law and liable to be set aside and that he was entitled to the payment of the difference of salary for the period between 2-7-1987 to 23-6-1995, was decreed on 19-6-1998. Appeal Nos. 7 of 2002, 8 of 2002, 9 of 2002, 10 of 2002, 11 of 2002 and 12 of 2002 preferred by the Applicants/appellants before learned District Judge (Eandn) at Gangtok were dismissed vide judgment dated 18-9-1999 and the decrees passed by the learned trial Court were duly confirmed. The Second Appeal Nos. 2 of 1999, 3 of 1999, 4 of 1999, 5 of 1999, 6 of 1999 and 7 of 1999 preferred before this High Court, impugning the above orders, also came to be dismissed. After the Second Appeals were dismissed by this Court, the Applicants/appellants moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, all the Special Leave Petitions met with the same fate. After the SLPs were dismissed, the Plaintiffs/respondents put the decree in execution in the Court of the Ld. Civil Judge, East at Gangtok. However, the executing Court dismissed all the execution petitions on 30-6-2001 on the ground that the decrees being declaratory in nature were incapable of execution and the Plaintiffs/ respondents might file separate suits for the reliefs claimed in the execution petition. Writ petition Nos. 46 of 2001, 47 of 2001, 48 of 2001, 49 of 2001, 50 of 2001 and 51 of 2001 filed by the Plaintiffs/respondents thereafter before this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking certain directions to the State, were disposed of with some directions holding that the High Court was not the appropriate forum for the reliefs prayed for. After the Writ Petitions were disposed of, the Plaintiffs/respondents instituted fresh money suits in the Court of Ld. District Judge, Special Div. II, East at Gangtok in the year 2002 seeking the same reliefs which were sought in the Writ Petition and the execution petition. The said money suits were decreed ex parte on 5-12-2003 on default of the Applicants/appellants to appear and to contest the suits. Against these ex parte decrees, the Applicants/appellants moved applications under Order IX Rule 13 cpc for setting aside the same. However, the said applications were rejected by the learned District Judge, Special Division II after hearing on 15-9-2004. Thereafter, neither the Applicants/appellants filed any appeal against the ex parte decree nor the decrees were put into execution for over one year, (1 year 2 months and 14 days to be precise ). The Applicants/appellants came to know of the execution petitions having been filed against them only when notices of the same were served on them on 7-2-2006. The appeals were then filed on 3-3-2006 along with the present applications for condonation of delay of 510 days.