R S R T C Jaipur And Others vs Indraj Sharma
2022 Latest Caselaw 1946 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 282/2016

1.       Rajasthan     State     Road      Transport        Corporation,   Jaipur,
         Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur, Through Chairman
         Cum Managing Director
2.       Zonal Manager, Bharatpur Zone, Rajasthan State Road
         Transport Corporation, Bharatpur
3.       Chief    Manager,        Rajasthan          State        Road   Transport
         Corporation, Tijara Depot, Alwar
                                                                    ----Appellants
                                     Versus
Idraraj Sharma S/o Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, Ram Nagar, Teh.
Tijara, Distt. Alwar At Present Driver, Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation, Tijara Depot, Distt. Alwar
                                                                   ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Vibhor Sharma
For Respondent(s)          :



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                  Judgment

04/03/2022

This appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by the appellants-

defendants- RSRTC (hereinafter `the RSRTC') against judgment and decree dated

4-4-2016 in First Appeal No.8/2014 (137/2014) passed by Additional District

Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan while dismissing appeal affirmed the judgment

and decree dated 30-9-2014 in Civil Suit No.187/2011 passed by the Additional

Civil Judge No.2 Jaipur Metropolitan whereby and whereunder impugned order

No.36 dated 15-1-2010 was declared being against principles of natural justice

(2 of 3) [CSA-282/2016]

null and void and accordingly the plaintiff was declared entitled to all service

benefits as prior to impugned order.

Heard the learned counsel for the RSRTC and perused the impugned

judgment and decree dated 4-4-2016 passed by the appellate court as also the

judgment and decree dated 30-9-2014 passed by the trial court.

A perusal of the impugned judgment of the trial court indicates that the

trial court considering lapses in enquiry conducted by defendants came to the

conclusion that impugned order dated 15-1-2010 passed by defendants was not

speaking one, consequently being against principles of natural justice was liable to

be quashed and as such issue No.1 was decided in favour of plaintiff. Issue No.2

regarding jurisdiction of Civil Court was decided against defendants. Similarly

issue No.3 regarding premature suit as no appeal was filed by plaintiff against

impugned order was also decided against defendants as they failed to show any

provision for filing appeal by plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was decreed and

impugned order dated 15-1-2010 was quashed and plaintiff was declared

entitled to all service benefits as prior to impugned order.

First appellate court finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned

judgment and decree passed by the trial court found no force in the appeal filed

by the RSRTC and dismissing the same affirmed the judgment and decree passed

by the trial court.

(3 of 3) [CSA-282/2016]

In my considered opinion both the courts below have not committed any

illegality. I find no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the trial as

affirmed by the first appellate court as it is based on pure finding of facts. No

substantial question of law is made out. Absent any substantial question of law, a

second appeal under Section 100 CPC is not maintainable.

Consequently, this second appeal is without any force and the same stands

dismissed.

Stay application also stands dismissed.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

Arn/1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)