AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.R. Midha, J.
CM No. 1556/2010 in RFA No. 625/2010
The Appellant has challenged the judgment and decree whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the Appellant''s suit for recovery of Rs. 4,59,070/- and mandatory injunction.
There is a delay of 571 days in filing of the appeal. The Appellant is seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal on the ground that he filed a review application before the learned Trial Court on 24th July, 2008, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 21st May, 2010. It is stated that the Appellant was under the bonafide belief that the review application would be allowed and, therefore, he did not file the appeal. This case does not fall within Section 14 of the Limitation Act as the Appellant was well aware that the appropriate remedy against the impugned judgment and decree was the appeal. Even if the period during which the Appellant was pursuing the review application is excluded, there is a delay of 145 days. There is no explanation for the delay of 145 days. As such, no case for condonation of delay is made out.
Even otherwise, there is no merit in the case of the Appellant, who was working as an Assistant Manager with the Respondent and was terminated vide notice dated 13th June, 2003 in terms of the Clause 9 of the appointment letter, which provided that the services could be terminated by written notice on either side by one month written notice or salary in lieu thereof. The Appellant challenged the termination and sought reinstatement along with back wages. The learned Trial Court held the termination to be valid in terms of Clause 9 of the appointment letter. There is no infirmity in the findings of the learned Trial Court inasmuch as the specific performance of a contract of personal services is specifically barred by Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, no case for condonation of delay is made out and, therefore, the application is dismissed.
RFA No. 625/2010
Dismissed as barred by limitation.