AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—Thepresent Second Appeal has been filed u/s 100 of the CPC challenging the Judgment & Order dated 27.03.1986 passed by the Learned Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No. 99 of 1986 confirming the Judgment & Order dated 27.03.1983 passed by the Learned Joint Civil Judge (SD), Junagadh in Regular Civil Suit No. 392/1982 with following substantial questions of law:
(1) Whether the courts below have erred in decreeing the suit and not holding that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any arrears as Regular Civil Suit No. 486/1974 was dismissed.
(2) Whether the courts below have erred in law in decreeing the suit of the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 11,974-78 ps. on account of arrears of salary though the Plaintiff was in service on account of an injunction granted by the Court.
The facts of the case briefly are that Suit came to be filed by the Respondent-original Plaintiff for the recovery of the amount, for which, he had rendered his service for a period from 26.03.1974 to 30.06.1976, for which, arrears of salary had not been paid amounting to Rs. 11,974/-. Suit came to be decreed by the trial Court as per the judgment and order dated 27.03.1986. The Appellant herein-State preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 99 of 1986 before the lower Appellate Court and the lower Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal vide judgment and Order dated 13.08.1988 confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. The aforesaid judgment and order has been assailed in the present Second Appeal posing the aforesaid substantial questions of law.
It is required to be mentioned that as per the order passed by this Court on 29.06.2009, it has been recorded that the Respondent has died and still as on today, no steps have been taken. Therefore, in any case, the present Second Appeal would stand abated and deserves to be dismissed on that short ground.
Accordingly,the present Second Appeal stands disposed of. Notice, if any, is discharged.
It goes without staying that the amount, which has been deposited, shall be paid to the heirs of the Respondent (deceased).