RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 109 BALWANT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS BALWANT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS BALWANT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS BALWANT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS Vs Vs Vs Vs THE PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ORS. THE PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ORS. THE PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ORS. THE PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ORS. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the appellant Mr. R.P.S. Bara, Advocate for the respondents (through video HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The appellant/plaintiff(s) is/are in appeal. plaintiff-Balwant Singh (now deceased) was Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur ( Court” Court” Court” Court”). For the sake of c status in the Civil Suit. [2]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 20.03.1996 and 12.06.1998 passed by the learned Courts below, whereby the dismi mandatory injunction filed at the instance of the plaintiff deceased) was affirmed. FACTS FACTS FACTS FACTS [3]. Briefly stating, the plaintiff was a regular employee of Punjab State Electricity Board; posted as Assistant Lineman at Jalandhar Cantt. Circle. The plaintiff made an application dated 08.03.1991 seeking his transfer from Jalandhar RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. RSA No. RSA No. RSA No.2624 2624 2624 2624 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: BALWANT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS BALWANT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS BALWANT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS BALWANT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS THE PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ORS. THE PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ORS. THE PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ORS. THE PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ORS. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr. R.P.S. Bara, Advocate for the respondents (through video- **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The appellant/plaintiff(s) is/are in appeal. Balwant Singh (now deceased) was Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in the Civil Suit. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 20.03.1996 and 12.06.1998 passed by the learned Courts below, whereby the dismissal of suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction filed at the instance of the plaintiff deceased) was affirmed. Briefly stating, the plaintiff was a regular employee of Punjab State oard; posted as Assistant Lineman at Jalandhar Cantt. Circle. The plaintiff made an application dated 08.03.1991 seeking his transfer from Jalandhar IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 2624 2624 2624 2624 of of of of 1998 1998 1998 1998 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: 02 02 02 02.0.0.0.07777.202 .202 .202 .2026666 BALWANT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS BALWANT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS BALWANT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS BALWANT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS...... ...... ...... ......Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant(s) (s) (s) (s) THE PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ORS. THE PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ORS. THE PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ORS. THE PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND ORS. ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent((((ssss)))) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJAAAA -conferencing). The appellant/plaintiff(s) is/are in appeal. First appeal filed by the Balwant Singh (now deceased) was also dismissed by the learned hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate onvenience, the parties are being referred to as per their By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 20.03.1996 and 12.06.1998 passed by the learned Courts below, ssal of suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction filed at the instance of the plaintiff-Balwant Singh (now Briefly stating, the plaintiff was a regular employee of Punjab State oard; posted as Assistant Lineman at Jalandhar Cantt. Circle. Circle. The plaintiff made an application dated 08.03.1991 seeking his transfer from Jalandhar 1 First appeal filed by the dismissed by the learned hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate onvenience, the parties are being referred to as per their By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 20.03.1996 and 12.06.1998 passed by the learned Courts below, ssal of suit for declaration with consequential relief of Balwant Singh (now Briefly stating, the plaintiff was a regular employee of Punjab State oard; posted as Assistant Lineman at Jalandhar Cantt. Circle. The plaintiff made an application dated 08.03.1991 seeking his transfer from Jalandhar MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M) Cantt. Circle to Gurdaspur Circle. On consideration of his domestic conditions, the prayer of his transfer plaintiff was relieved from Jalandhar Circle on 30.08.1991 and was directed to join at Gurdaspur Circle immediately. On 30.08.1991, One Ram Partap, Assistant Lineman joined at his place at Jalandhar and respondents/defendants for permitting him to join at Gurdaspur, but all in vain. Even notice dated 10.09.1991 (Ex.P respondents/defendants by the plaintiff seeking his re however, the sam to the effect that the appellant/plaintiff to full pay including all back wages along with other benefits from the date of his transfer w.e.f. 30.08 posting as well as seeking mandatory injunction for directing defendants to allow the plaintiff to join duty as Assistant Lineman. [4]. Upon notice, respondents/defendant(s) appeared and filed statement admitting the plaintiff to be regular employee of Punjab State Electricity Board and he was working as Assistant Lineman in Jalandhar Cantt. Circle and was transferred to Gurdaspur Circle. dated 30.09.1991, the plaintiff was directed to join, however, he did not join his duty intentionally and deliberately. only interested in joining at Shahla, Tibber, Dina Nagar, Behrampur and since there was no vacancy at those stations, plaintiff was directed to join at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib, however, he failed to join his d the instance of the plaintiff reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. [5]. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues: RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M) Cantt. Circle to Gurdaspur Circle. On consideration of his domestic conditions, the prayer of his transfer was allowed vide order dated 07.08.1991. Thereafter, plaintiff was relieved from Jalandhar Circle on 30.08.1991 and was directed to join at Gurdaspur Circle immediately. On 30.08.1991, One Ram Partap, Assistant Lineman joined at his place at Jalandhar and respondents/defendants for permitting him to join at Gurdaspur, but all in vain. Even notice dated 10.09.1991 (Ex.P-4) respondents/defendants by the plaintiff seeking his re however, the same was never responded to, hence, the present suit for declaration to the effect that the appellant/plaintiff-Balwant Singh (now deceased) was entitled to full pay including all back wages along with other benefits from the date of his transfer w.e.f. 30.08.1991 till the date he was allowed to re posting as well as seeking mandatory injunction for directing defendants to allow the plaintiff to join duty as Assistant Lineman. Upon notice, respondents/defendant(s) appeared and filed statement admitting the plaintiff to be regular employee of Punjab State Electricity Board and he was working as Assistant Lineman in Jalandhar Cantt. Circle and was transferred to Gurdaspur Circle. It was pleaded that vide office order No.492 d 30.09.1991, the plaintiff was directed to join, however, he did not join his intentionally and deliberately. Further, it was averred that the plaintiff was only interested in joining at Shahla, Tibber, Dina Nagar, Behrampur and since there was no vacancy at those stations, plaintiff was directed to join at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib, however, he failed to join his d the instance of the plaintiff reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- Cantt. Circle to Gurdaspur Circle. On consideration of his domestic conditions, the was allowed vide order dated 07.08.1991. Thereafter, plaintiff was relieved from Jalandhar Circle on 30.08.1991 and was directed to join at Gurdaspur Circle immediately. On 30.08.1991, One Ram Partap, Assistant Lineman joined at his place at Jalandhar and he approached the respondents/defendants for permitting him to join at Gurdaspur, but all in vain. 4) was also served upon the respondents/defendants by the plaintiff seeking his re-joining at Gurdaspur, e was never responded to, hence, the present suit for declaration Balwant Singh (now deceased) was entitled to full pay including all back wages along with other benefits from the date of his .1991 till the date he was allowed to re-join at the place of posting as well as seeking mandatory injunction for directing defendants to allow Upon notice, respondents/defendant(s) appeared and filed written statement admitting the plaintiff to be regular employee of Punjab State Electricity Board and he was working as Assistant Lineman in Jalandhar Cantt. Circle and It was pleaded that vide office order No.492 d 30.09.1991, the plaintiff was directed to join, however, he did not join his Further, it was averred that the plaintiff was only interested in joining at Shahla, Tibber, Dina Nagar, Behrampur and since there was no vacancy at those stations, plaintiff was directed to join at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib, however, he failed to join his duty. Replication was filed at the instance of the plaintiff reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court 2 Cantt. Circle to Gurdaspur Circle. On consideration of his domestic conditions, the was allowed vide order dated 07.08.1991. Thereafter, plaintiff was relieved from Jalandhar Circle on 30.08.1991 and was directed to join at Gurdaspur Circle immediately. On 30.08.1991, One Ram Partap, Assistant he approached the respondents/defendants for permitting him to join at Gurdaspur, but all in vain. also served upon the joining at Gurdaspur, e was never responded to, hence, the present suit for declaration Balwant Singh (now deceased) was entitled to full pay including all back wages along with other benefits from the date of his join at the place of posting as well as seeking mandatory injunction for directing defendants to allow written statement admitting the plaintiff to be regular employee of Punjab State Electricity Board and he was working as Assistant Lineman in Jalandhar Cantt. Circle and It was pleaded that vide office order No.492 d 30.09.1991, the plaintiff was directed to join, however, he did not join his Further, it was averred that the plaintiff was only interested in joining at Shahla, Tibber, Dina Nagar, Behrampur and since there was no vacancy at those stations, plaintiff was directed to join at Sri uty. Replication was filed at On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M) “1. 2. [6]. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, ( be referred to as the “trial Court” be referred to as the “trial Court” be referred to as the “trial Court” be referred to as the “trial Court” dismissed the suit with costs filed at the instance of [7]. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed the first appeal, dismissed vide judgment and decree dated Appellate Court. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. CONTENTION(S) CONTENTION(S) CONTENTION(S) CONTENTION(S) ON BEHALF O ON BEHALF O ON BEHALF O ON BEHALF O [8]. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the entire defence by the respondents/defendants in the written statement was to the effect that in terms of office order No.492 dated 30.08.1991, the plaintiff was directed to join at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib, however no such order was ever thus adverse inference was required to be drawn against the defendants. [8.1]. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents/defendants even failed to respond to any of the legal whereby he repeatedly requested the respondents/defendants to make him join as Assistant Lineman at Gurdaspur in terms of the relieving order dated 30.08.1991. Learned counsel thus, submits that the impugned judgm the learned Courts below were liable to be set aside and the suit preferred at the instance of the plaintiff was to be decreed. RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declar OPP Relief.” The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, ( be referred to as the “trial Court” be referred to as the “trial Court” be referred to as the “trial Court” be referred to as the “trial Court”), vide its judgment and decree dated 20.03.1996, dismissed the suit with costs filed at the instance of Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed the first appeal, dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.06.1998 Appellate Court. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. CONTENTION(S) CONTENTION(S) CONTENTION(S) CONTENTION(S):::: ON BEHALF O ON BEHALF O ON BEHALF O ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S) F THE APPELLANT(S) F THE APPELLANT(S) F THE APPELLANT(S)----PLAINTIFF(S) PLAINTIFF(S) PLAINTIFF(S) PLAINTIFF(S) Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the below, learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the entire defence by the respondents/defendants in the written statement was to the effect that in terms of office order No.492 dated 30.08.1991, the plaintiff was directed to join at pur Sahib, however no such order was ever thus adverse inference was required to be drawn against the defendants. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents/defendants even failed to respond to any of the legal notices served upon them by the plaintiff, whereby he repeatedly requested the respondents/defendants to make him join as Assistant Lineman at Gurdaspur in terms of the relieving order dated 30.08.1991. Learned counsel thus, submits that the impugned judgm the learned Courts below were liable to be set aside and the suit preferred at the instance of the plaintiff was to be decreed. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, (hereinafter to hereinafter to hereinafter to hereinafter to ), vide its judgment and decree dated 20.03.1996, dismissed the suit with costs filed at the instance of plaintiff. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed the first appeal, which was also 12.06.1998 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. PLAINTIFF(S) PLAINTIFF(S) PLAINTIFF(S) PLAINTIFF(S):::: Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the below, learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the entire defence by the respondents/defendants in the written statement was to the effect that in terms of office order No.492 dated 30.08.1991, the plaintiff was directed to join at pur Sahib, however no such order was ever served upon him and, thus adverse inference was required to be drawn against the defendants. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents/defendants even notices served upon them by the plaintiff, whereby he repeatedly requested the respondents/defendants to make him join as Assistant Lineman at Gurdaspur in terms of the relieving order dated 30.08.1991. Learned counsel thus, submits that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below were liable to be set aside and the suit preferred at the 3 ation as prayed for? hereinafter to hereinafter to hereinafter to hereinafter to ), vide its judgment and decree dated 20.03.1996, which was also passed by the learned First Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the below, learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the entire defence by the respondents/defendants in the written statement was to the effect that in terms of office order No.492 dated 30.08.1991, the plaintiff was directed to join at and, Learned counsel further submits that the respondents/defendants even notices served upon them by the plaintiff, whereby he repeatedly requested the respondents/defendants to make him join as Assistant Lineman at Gurdaspur in terms of the relieving order dated 30.08.1991. ents and decrees passed by the learned Courts below were liable to be set aside and the suit preferred at the MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) [9]. On the other hand, learned counsel representing t respondents/defendants submits that the plea taken in the written statement with respect to the office order No.492 dated 30.09.1991 was duly proved on record through the deposition made by DW Superintendent from the office which the plaintiff was asked to join his duty at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib. Learned counsel thus, submits that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below were based on proper appreci evidence available on record, warranting no interference and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. DISCUSSION AND REASONING: DISCUSSION AND REASONING: DISCUSSION AND REASONING: DISCUSSION AND REASONING: [10]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s). [11]. The only defence taken by the respondents/defendants in the written statement was to the effect that the office order No.492 dated 30.09.1991 was passed, whereby the plaintiff was directed to join at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib, however strangely, no such office order dated 30.09.1991 was ever produced on record by the respondents/defendants. In such circumstances, mere oral deposition made by DW-1 Om Par (Executive Engineer), PSEB, Batala, about passing of any office order dated 30.09.1991 was not of much relevance. Moreover, upon a perusal of the record, it can nowhere be found that any such office order thereby directing him to join at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib. In addition, the RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S)----DEFENDANT(S) DEFENDANT(S) DEFENDANT(S) DEFENDANT(S) On the other hand, learned counsel representing t respondents/defendants submits that the plea taken in the written statement with respect to the office order No.492 dated 30.09.1991 was duly proved on record through the deposition made by DW-1, namely, Om Parkash, Office Superintendent from the office of XEN (Executive Engineer), PSEB, Batala, vide which the plaintiff was asked to join his duty at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib. Learned counsel thus, submits that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below were based on proper appreci evidence available on record, warranting no interference and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. DISCUSSION AND REASONING: DISCUSSION AND REASONING: DISCUSSION AND REASONING: DISCUSSION AND REASONING: I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the well as records of the case. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s). The only defence taken by the respondents/defendants in the written statement was to the effect that the office order No.492 dated 30.09.1991 was assed, whereby the plaintiff was directed to join at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib, however strangely, no such office order dated 30.09.1991 was ever produced on record by the respondents/defendants. In such circumstances, mere oral deposition 1 Om Parkash, Office Superintendent from the office of XEN (Executive Engineer), PSEB, Batala, about passing of any office order dated 30.09.1991 was not of much relevance. Moreover, upon a perusal of the record, it can nowhere be found that any such office order thereby directing him to join at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib. In addition, the DEFENDANT(S) DEFENDANT(S) DEFENDANT(S) DEFENDANT(S):::: On the other hand, learned counsel representing t respondents/defendants submits that the plea taken in the written statement with respect to the office order No.492 dated 30.09.1991 was duly proved on record 1, namely, Om Parkash, Office of XEN (Executive Engineer), PSEB, Batala, vide which the plaintiff was asked to join his duty at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib. Learned counsel thus, submits that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below were based on proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence available on record, warranting no interference and accordingly prayed I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the well as records of the case. I find substance in the submissions made The only defence taken by the respondents/defendants in the written statement was to the effect that the office order No.492 dated 30.09.1991 was assed, whereby the plaintiff was directed to join at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib, however strangely, no such office order dated 30.09.1991 was ever produced on record by the respondents/defendants. In such circumstances, mere oral deposition kash, Office Superintendent from the office of XEN (Executive Engineer), PSEB, Batala, about passing of any office order dated 30.09.1991 was not of much relevance. Moreover, upon a perusal of the record, it can nowhere be found that any such office order was ever served upon the plaintiff, thereby directing him to join at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib. In addition, the 4 On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents/defendants submits that the plea taken in the written statement with respect to the office order No.492 dated 30.09.1991 was duly proved on record 1, namely, Om Parkash, Office of XEN (Executive Engineer), PSEB, Batala, vide which the plaintiff was asked to join his duty at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib. Learned counsel thus, submits that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the ation of the pleadings and evidence available on record, warranting no interference and accordingly prayed I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the well as records of the case. I find substance in the submissions made The only defence taken by the respondents/defendants in the written statement was to the effect that the office order No.492 dated 30.09.1991 was assed, whereby the plaintiff was directed to join at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib, however strangely, no such office order dated 30.09.1991 was ever produced on record by the respondents/defendants. In such circumstances, mere oral deposition kash, Office Superintendent from the office of XEN (Executive Engineer), PSEB, Batala, about passing of any office order dated 30.09.1991 was not of much relevance. Moreover, upon a perusal of the record, it was ever served upon the plaintiff, thereby directing him to join at Sri Hargobindpur Sahib. In addition, the MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M) respondents/defendants did not even responded to the legal notice dated 10.09.1994 (Ex.P for permitting him to re his relieving order dated 30.08.1991. [12]. Further, a perusal of the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below goes on to show that the approach adopted respondents/defendants, was not in consonance with the fundamental exposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of ‘ Mohd. Hazi Lati Mohd. Hazi Lati Mohd. Hazi Lati Mohd. Hazi Lati that the party in possession of best evidence needs to be produce the same before the Court, if it holds fact and adverse inference needs to be drawn against the defaulting party. In such circumstances, the grievance expressed by the plaintiff in his suit to the effe especially in the absence of any substantial proof regarding office order dated 30.09.1991 has been served upon him case (supra) are extracted hereunder: “…….. account of the Dargah to show as to how the income from plot No. 134 was dealt with. Mr. Gokhale, however, argued that it was no part of the appellant's duty to produce the accounts and the onus we. upon the respondents to prove the case and to show that the Dargah was the owner of plot No. 134. argument as correct. Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, opinion, a opinion, a opinion, a opinion, a facts to withhold from the possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof. In Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, 44 Ind App 98 at p. 103 Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, 44 Ind App 98 at p. 103 Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, 44 Ind App 98 at p. 103 Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, 44 Ind App 98 at p. 103 observed as follows : RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M) respondents/defendants did not even responded to the legal notice dated 10.09.1994 (Ex.P-4) served upon them by the plaintiff, whereby request was for permitting him to re-join the respondent-Department at Gurdaspur in terms of his relieving order dated 30.08.1991. Further, a perusal of the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below goes on to show that the approach adopted respondents/defendants, was not in consonance with the fundamental exposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of ‘ Mohd. Hazi Lati Mohd. Hazi Lati Mohd. Hazi Lati Mohd. Hazi Latiffff and others, and others, and others, and others, reported as AIR 1968 SC 1413 AIR 1968 SC 1413 AIR 1968 SC 1413 AIR 1968 SC 1413 ty in possession of best evidence needs to be produce the same before the Court, if it holds fact and adverse inference needs to be drawn against the defaulting party. In such circumstances, the grievance expressed by the plaintiff in his suit to the effect that he was not allowed to join at Gurdaspur carries merit especially in the absence of any substantial proof regarding office order dated 30.09.1991 has been served upon him. The relevant portion of Gopal Krishna’s case (supra) are extracted hereunder:- “……..But the appellant has not produced either his own accounts or the account of the Dargah to show as to how the income from plot No. 134 was dealt with. Mr. Gokhale, however, argued that it was no part of the appellant's duty to produce the accounts and the onus we. upon the respondents to prove the case and to show that the Dargah was the owner of plot No. 134. argument as correct. Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, opinion, a opinion, a opinion, a opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof. In Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, 44 Ind App 98 at p. 103 Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, 44 Ind App 98 at p. 103 Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, 44 Ind App 98 at p. 103 Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, 44 Ind App 98 at p. 103 observed as follows : "A practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of he onus of proof, and respondents/defendants did not even responded to the legal notice dated 4) served upon them by the plaintiff, whereby request was made Department at Gurdaspur in terms of Further, a perusal of the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below goes on to show that the approach adopted respondents/defendants, was not in consonance with the fundamental exposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of ‘Gopal Krishna Ji K Gopal Krishna Ji K Gopal Krishna Ji K Gopal Krishna Ji Keeeetkar Vs. tkar Vs. tkar Vs. tkar Vs. AIR 1968 SC 1413 AIR 1968 SC 1413 AIR 1968 SC 1413 AIR 1968 SC 1413 wherein it was held ty in possession of best evidence needs to be produce the same before the Court, if it holds fact and adverse inference needs to be drawn against the defaulting party. In such circumstances, the grievance expressed by the plaintiff in ct that he was not allowed to join at Gurdaspur carries merit especially in the absence of any substantial proof regarding office order dated . The relevant portion of Gopal Krishna’s But the appellant has not produced either his own accounts or the account of the Dargah to show as to how the income from plot No. 134 was dealt with. Mr. Gokhale, however, argued that it was no part of the appellant's duty to produce the accounts unless he was called upon to do so and the onus we. upon the respondents to prove the case and to show that the Dargah was the owner of plot No. 134. We are unable to accept We are unable to accept We are unable to accept We are unable to accept argument as correct. Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our in our in our in our sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof. In Murugesam Pillai v. Murugesam Pillai v. Murugesam Pillai v. Murugesam Pillai v. Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, 44 Ind App 98 at p. 103 Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, 44 Ind App 98 at p. 103 Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, 44 Ind App 98 at p. 103 Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, 44 Ind App 98 at p. 103 Lord Shaw "A practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of he onus of proof, and 5 respondents/defendants did not even responded to the legal notice dated made Department at Gurdaspur in terms of Further, a perusal of the judgments and decrees passed by the learned by respondents/defendants, was not in consonance with the fundamental exposition of tkar Vs. tkar Vs. tkar Vs. tkar Vs. wherein it was held ty in possession of best evidence needs to be produce the same before the Court, if it holds fact and adverse inference needs to be drawn against the defaulting party. In such circumstances, the grievance expressed by the plaintiff in ct that he was not allowed to join at Gurdaspur carries merit especially in the absence of any substantial proof regarding office order dated . The relevant portion of Gopal Krishna’s But the appellant has not produced either his own accounts or the account of the Dargah to show as to how the income from plot No. 134 was dealt with. Mr. Gokhale, however, argued that it was no part of the unless he was called upon to do so and the onus we. upon the respondents to prove the case and to show that this argument as correct. Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in our in our in our in our sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to Murugesam Pillai v. Murugesam Pillai v. Murugesam Pillai v. Murugesam Pillai v. Lord Shaw "A practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of he onus of proof, and MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M) [13]. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the judgments and decrees dated 20.03.1996 and 12. aside and suit for declaration filed at the instance of plaintiff stands decreed to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled for all his service dues including pay fixation, arrears, pension, made to rejoin in terms of present appeal. The plaintiff shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on the dues payable to him. Decree [14]. Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. July July July July 02 02 02 02, 202 , 202 , 202 , 2026666 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable RSA No.2624 of 1998 (O&M) failing. accordingly, to furnish to the Courts the best ma for its decision With regard to third parties, this may be right enough - they have no responsibility for the conduct of the suit but with regard to the parties thee suit it is, in their Lordships' opinion, an inversion of sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in their possession which would throw light upon the proposition." As a result of aforesaid discussion, the judgments and decrees dated 20.03.1996 and 12.06.1998 passed by the learned Courts below are hereby set aside and suit for declaration filed at the instance of plaintiff stands decreed to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled for all his service dues including pay fixation, arrears, pension, benefits towards seniority w.e.f. 30.08.1991 till he was made to rejoin in terms of the order dated 09.02.1999 passed by this Court . The plaintiff shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on the dues payable to him. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No failing. accordingly, to furnish to the Courts the best material for its decision With regard to third parties, this may be right they have no responsibility for the conduct of the suit but with regard to the parties thee suit it is, in their Lordships' opinion, an inversion of sound practice for those esiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in their possession which would throw light upon the proposition." As a result of aforesaid discussion, the judgments and decrees dated 06.1998 passed by the learned Courts below are hereby set aside and suit for declaration filed at the instance of plaintiff stands decreed to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled for all his service dues including pay benefits towards seniority w.e.f. 30.08.1991 till he was order dated 09.02.1999 passed by this Court in the . The plaintiff shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on sheet be prepared accordingly. Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 6 terial for its decision With regard to third parties, this may be right they have no responsibility for the conduct of the suit but with regard to the parties thee suit it is, in their Lordships' opinion, an inversion of sound practice for those esiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in their possession which As a result of aforesaid discussion, the judgments and decrees dated 06.1998 passed by the learned Courts below are hereby set aside and suit for declaration filed at the instance of plaintiff stands decreed to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled for all his service dues including pay benefits towards seniority w.e.f. 30.08.1991 till he was in the . The plaintiff shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment