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 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 21:51:30 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083087 2 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 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 21:51:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083087 3 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 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 21:51:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083087 4 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
::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 21:51:31 :::