Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajender Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083087
1
RSA-679 of 2023
20 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-679 of 202023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.07.2024
Rajender Singh
......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Mr. Raje Ram Kaushik,, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
CM-2653-C
C of 2023
1. This application has been filed by the applicant
applicant-appellant
under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 246 days in re
re-
filing the appeal.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is
supported by an affidavit, same is allowed. Delay of 246 days in re
re-
filing the appeal is condoned.
CM-2654-C
C of 2023
1. This application has been filed by the applicant
applicant-appellant
under Section
ction 149 CPC for making up the deficiency of court fee of
Rs.49/- in the appeal.
2. As per office report, since the deficiency in court fee has
already been made good, therefore, no orders are required to be passed
in this application.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083087
RSA-679 of 2023
20 (O&M)
3. CM stands disposed of.
RSA-679
679 of 2023
1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 01.08.2019 passed by the Court of learned
Additional District Judge, Hisar, upholding the judgment and decree
dated 31.08.2013 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Hisar, whereby suit of the plaintiff
plaintiff-appellant for permanent
injunction was dismissed.
2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made
as per their status in the civil suit. Briefly stated, plaintiff filed a suit
for permanent injunction directing the defendants to issue experience
certificate to the plaintiff duly countersigned by defendant No.2,
pleading therein that he served with defendant No.3 - Lahoria Senior
Secondary School, Hisar, from 28.09.1995 to 16.09.1996 against the
post of Lecturer, Commerce, and in this regard experience certificate
dated 30.08.1997 was issued to the plaintiff by respondent No.3.
However, despite repeated requests, defendant No.2 denied to
countersign the experience certificate.
certi After hearing arguments and
after appreciating evidence on record, trial Court dismissed the suit of
plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.2013. Aggrieved
against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiff preferred an
appeal before the lower appellate Court, which also met the same fate
vide judgment and decree dated 01.08.2019
01.08.2019. Hence, this Regular
Second Appeal.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083087
RSA-679 of 2023
20 (O&M)
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that findings
of both the Courts below are perverse and erroneous in the eyes of law.
He further contended that Courts below have not appreciated the
evidence led by the appellant in right perspective. He further
contended that since the appellant was employed with respondent No.3,
therefore, he is entitled to get the experience certificate. He further
contended that first appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed in
default on 19.10.2016 and the application for restoration was filed
which was allowed on 03.07.2019 and the appeal was restored to its
original
al number. Thereafter,
Thereafte , notice was issued to opposite part
parties but
they did not respond and ultimately appeal was dismissed without
application of mind. He further contended that judgments and decrees
of the Courts below being based on conjectures and surm
surmises are liable
to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the
judgments and decrees of the Courts below and contended that same
are perfectly legal and valid.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
6. Perusal of the record shows that appellant could not prove
that he was employed as Lecturer in Lahoria Senior Secondary School
School,
Hisar, by leading any cogent evidence on the record
record. Neither any
appointment letter nor any proof qua salary being gi
given by the school
was placed on record by the appellant to substantiate his claim.
Appellant has miserably failed to prove his case that he worked as
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083087
RSA-679 of 2023
20 (O&M)
Lecturer with respondent No.3 - School,, therefore, he is not entitled to
the experience certificate as claimed by him. Moreover, during the
course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that now
the appellant is of 57 years of age. Therefore, otherwise also at this
stage the experience certificate sought by the appellant is of no
relevance to him.
him
7. Concurrent findings have been recorded by both the
Courts below and learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show
that the same are perverse or illegal or based on misreading, non-
reading or mis-appreciation
mis of the material evidence oon record.
8. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law
has been raised or arises for consideration in the present appeal. No
other point has been urged.
9. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed
dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
04.07.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
