1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No. 385 of 2006 AKSHAY KUMAR V/S RAJASTHAN SPINNING AND WEANING MAYUR MIL Mr. CS KOTWANI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. SANJEEV JOHARI, for the respondent Date of Order : 17.7.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the impugned judgment. A look at the impugned judgment shows that in para-15 thereof it has clearly been recited that the plaintiff had been terminated from service by the defendant vide order dt. 20.7.2000, and his contract of service has come to an end vide order Ex.A-15, and that this fact has been admitted jointly by the plaintiff, and the defendant. Then, it is recited that after the termination of service, the plaintiff has received the terminal benefits through cheque which fact has been admitted by the plaintiff in his statement. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that this statement is wrong, but then a look at the entire memo 2 of appeal there is no ground taken to show that this recital is wrong. Learned counsel was pointedly requested to point out the ground if there be any but there is none. In my view in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak reported in AIR 1982 SC-1249, the recitals in the judgment are to be taken as such. That being the position I do not find any error on the part of the learned lower Appellate Court in allowing the appeal of the defendant. The appeal thus does not involve any substantial question of law. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /sushil/