RFA No.832/2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No.832/2010 Date of Reserve : 1st August, 2011 % Date of decision : 16th September, 2011 MAYA ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Gurbaksh Singh and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Advs. versus S. SARASWATY AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through : Respondent in person. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Not 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Necessary 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT J.R. MIDHA, J. * 1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and the decree of the learned Trial Court whereby her suit for damages was dismissed by the learned Trial Court as barred by limitation as well as res judicata. 2. The appellant was appointed as a teacher with the respondents in August 1994. The services of the appellant were terminated by respondent No.1 on 4th September, 1997. The appellant challenged the termination by filing a suit for RFA No.832/2010 Page 2 of 3 declaration and consequential relief before the Civil Judge being Suit No.18 of 1998, which was dismissed on 23rd February, 2005 against which the appellant preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed. 3. The learned Trial Court held the plaintiff’s suit to be barred by principles of constructive res judicata on the ground that the appellant could have sought the relief of damages in the previously instituted suit. The learned Trial Court also held the suit to be barred by Article 75 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, which provides for a limitation of one year for claiming the damages. The appellant’s application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act seeking exclusion of the period during which she was prosecuting the earlier suit was also rejected by the learned Trial Court. 4. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that the earlier suit was dismissed with an observation that the appellant’s remedy was to file a suit for wrongful dismissal and damages, which implied that the appellant was given liberty to file fresh suit and, therefore, the principles of res judicata will not be applicable. It is further submitted that the appellant is entitled to exclusion of the period of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is further submitted that the nature of both the suits are different RFA No.832/2010 Page 3 of 3 and, therefore, Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall not be applicable. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of N.N. Seth v. Union of India, 1999 (78) DLT 203 and State of Maharahstra v. National Construction Company, Bombay, (1996) 1 SCC 735. 5. The appellant’s suit is clearly barred by the principles of constructive res judicata as the appellant could have sought the relief of damages in the earlier suit. The limitation for filing the suit for damages is one year under Article 75 of the Schedule the Limitation Act and the suit having been filed after the said period, is clearly barred by limitation. No case for exclusion of the time period under Section 14 is made out. The judgments cited by the appellant are not applicable to the present case. There is no infirmity in the finding of the learned Trial Court. 6. There is no merit or substance in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. J.R. MIDHA, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 Dev