Bombay High Court
Harihar S/O Warluji Kamdi vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 7 September, 2021
Bench: S. M. Modak
Order 4 sa 603-2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
SECOND APPEAL NO.603/2017
Harihar s/o Warluji Kamdi,
Vs.
State of Maharashtra through Collector, Chandrapur and others.
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO.677/2017
Harihar s/o Warluji Kamdi,
Vs.
State of Maharashtra through Collector, Chandrapur and others.
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri S.B. Tiwar, Advocate for appellant.
Ms H.N. Jaipurkar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 4/State.
Shri Ganesh Mate, Advocate h/f Shri S.P. Bhandarkar,
Advocate for respondent no.13.
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 07, 2021.
SECOND APPEAL NO.603/2017
Though the appellant has served copies of
annexures to respondent no.13 as directed on 02/08/2021,
no steps are taken. There is a grievance made on behalf of the
respondent no.13 that those annexures are incomplete. One
of the incomplete papers consist of judgment and decree.
The respondent no.13 must have obtained it
earlier. The grievance is not accepted. So far as the grievance
for remaining incomplete papers, that is not accepted because
no effective steps have been taken earlier.
Order 4 sa 603-2017
SECOND APPEAL NO.603/2017 WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO.677/2017
This Court has heard the arguments of learned
Advocate for the appellant-original plaintiff. During midst of
the argument, this Court feels that it is necessary to see the
documentary evidence. This is for the reason that the Trial
Court has accepted the claim of the plaintiff for arrears of pay
scales from November 2006 up to the date of the judgment.
Whereas, the First Appellate Court in an appeal filed by the
management has restricted the arrears from November 2006
up to July 2008. There are certain correspondence between
the management and the plaintiff which were referred by the
First Appellate Court.
2. Ultimately, in Second Appeal No.677/2017, this
Court is to consider whether the restriction of the claim by
the First Appellate Court is correct or not. For that, the
relevant documents need to be perused.
3. So far as Appeal No.603/2017 is concerned,
judgment of the First Appellate Court is challenged by the
plaintiff. The concerned First Appeal No.37/2015 is preferred
by the original plaintiff because his prayer for declaring the
transfer as illegal was not considered by the Trial Court as
well as by the First Appellate Court.
4. The circumstances compel this Court to look into
the conduct on behalf of the learned Advocate appearing for
respondent no.13. In fact, when his request for non supply of
Order 4 sa 603-2017
the documents in appeal No.603/2017 was turned down, no
request was made that he was not having instructions to
argue the matter. It was made subsequently. In fact, this
request ought to have been made when the Court started
hearing the arguments of learned Advocate for the appellants.
5. In view of the above, the appellant is directed to
produce the exhibited documents and the synopsis of the
events that took place and which are referred by the First
Appellate Court in paragraph no.2 of the judgment in RCA
No.29/2014. Hence, even learned Assistant Government
Pleader submitted that subsequently, Government has
allowed the grant to the school of Sonpur as per the letter
dated 02/03/2009 and it is referred in paragraph no.36 of the
judgment of the Regular Civil Appeal No.29/2014.
6. The matter be kept for further arguments on
admission on 22/09/2021.
JUDGE
R.S. Sahare
