CM No.13990-CII of 2009 and 1 C.R. No. 3410 of 2009 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. Decided on 04.6.2009 Sanatan Dharam Education Board, Narnaul -- Petitioner vs Daya Nand and another -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat,Advocate, for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar, Jain, J: (Oral) CM No.13990-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Revision No.3410 of 2009 This revision is directed against the order dated 27.4.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division),Narnaul. The petitioner filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction alleging that he was employed by the respondents as a Clerk in the non-teaching staff against a non-sanctioned post on 31.7.1999 on consolidated pay on temporary basis. He prayed for his regular employment against a sanctioned post on the retirement of an employee on 30.11.2002, who was working against a sanctioned post. In the written statement, it was averred by the defendants/petitioner CM No.13990-CII of 2009 and 2 C.R. No. 3410 of 2009 the plaintiff/respondent got the job due to the influence of his brother who was working as Steno with S.D.M.Narnaul, and since his appointment was against due procedure, therefore, his services were terminated on 16.4.2003 and a cheque of Rs. 467/- towards salary was given to him which was not received by the plaintiff and was received back by the defendant/petitioners on 24.4.2003, however, it was sent by registered post on the same date. Evidence of the parties was closed on 19.10.2004 and 20.5.2005 respectively and since 29.8.2005, the case has been listed for rebuttal evidence and arguments and is continued for the same purpose for the last 3 and ½ years because the plaintiff was taking dates. Further the case of the petitioner is that suddenly the plaintiff filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 ( for short 'CPC') for leading additional evidence of an enquiry report dated 24.12.2008 which was conducted by the Section Officer of District Education Office, Narnaul in the order of termination passed on 16.4.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Court below has allowed the application for additional evidence only on the ground that enquiry report dated 29.12.2008 has come into existence after the plaintiff had closed his evidence on 19.4.2005, although, it is argued that the said report is managed and manufactured by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that at this stage, only thing which is to be seen by the Court below is as to whether the report dated 29.12.2008 deserves to be taken on record through the additional evidence or not. The learned Court below has found that the dispute is with regard to termination order dated 16.4.2003 which has CM No.13990-CII of 2009 and 3 C.R. No. 3410 of 2009 been enquired into by the Education Office, Narnaul and a report thereto has been submitted by the Section Officer on 24.12.2008. Therefore, the report in my view is relevant. The question as to whether the report is managed or is not in accordance with the law, that shall be seen by the learned Court below at the time of adjudicating the lis between the parties finally. With these observations, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. June 04,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge Refer to Reporter-- Yes