R. S. A. No. 1212 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1212 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 22, 2010 State of Punjab through its Secretary (Co-op) and others .... Appellants Vs. Gurjit Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal by defendants – State of Punjab and its officers, having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Respondent Gurjit Singh filed suit seeking declaration that he is entitled to Rs.1,78,398/- as gratuity amount and Rs.50,000/- as damages for causing delay in payment thereof and interest @ 18% per annum. The plaintiff retired on 31.03.2004 as Inspector (Audit) in the service of defendants. Gratuity amount of Rs.1,78,398/- was payable by the defendants to the plaintiff on his retirement. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants failed to pay the gratuity amount. Defendants have pleaded that gratuity amount was paid to the plaintiff in time i.e. on 14.06.2004 after having been withdrawn on 14.05.2004 from the treasury. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar, vide R. S. A. No. 1212 of 2010 2 judgment and decree dated 16.02.2009, decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to gratuity amount of Rs.1,78,398/- from the defendants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till recovery. It was found by the trial court that payment of gratuity amount to the plaintiff had not been proved. First appeal preferred by the defendants has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Rupnagar, vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2009, except that the rate of interest has been reduced from 9% per annum to 8% per annum. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the trial court at Rupnagar had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit because the plaintiff retired from service at Jalandhar. However, the defendants cannot raise this plea in the instant second appeal because this plea was admittedly not raised before the lower appellate court. It is correct that plea of bar of territorial jurisdiction was raised in the trial court and issue no.2 was framed regarding the same. The said issue was decided by the trial court against the defendants, who led no evidence thereon. In grounds of appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the trial court, learned counsel for the appellants concedes, the finding of the trial court on issue no.2 relating to jurisdiction, was not challenged. Thus, the issue relating to bar of territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, now sought to be raised in the instant second appeal, was not raised in the first appeal. Consequently, the defendants cannot be allowed to raise the said issue in the instant second appeal. Even otherwise, equity, justice and good conscience demand that the instant second appeal at the instance of State of Punjab should not be entertained on the technical ground of bar of territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below that R. S. A. No. 1212 of 2010 3 payment of gratuity amount by defendants to the plaintiff is not proved. The said finding is not under challenge in the instant second appeal. Consequently, the plaintiff should not be non-suited on the technical objection that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff- respondent served the defendant-appellants for long years and on retirement, he was entitled to the gratuity amount. The defendants failed to pay the same to the plaintiff, who was therefore compelled to approach the Civil Court to seek payment of gratuity amount. Now, the poor retired employee should not be directed to go through another round of litigation on the technical objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. March 22, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE