IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1730 OF 2008 Between: Grama Swarajya Sangam rep. by its Secretary, G.Nagasheshudu ......petitioner AND M.Nagaraju and others ......Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1730 OF 2008 ORDER: The respondents 1 to 3 herein had filed O.S.No.226 of 2003 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool for following reliefs: “It is, therefore, prayed that the Honourable Court be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants: i) for Rs.2,00,000/- with future interest; at 24% P.A. ii) to declare that the removal of the first plaintiff from service is illegal and void and to direct reinstatement in continuity of service with all benefits as on the date of the suit; iii) Award costs of the suit; and iv) For such other reliefs as the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” The petitioner herein, who is the employee and defendant No.1 in the suit as well as the defendants 2 and 3, who are respondents 4 and 5 herein have contested the suit inter alia by raising a contention that the civil suit seeking relief of reinstatement is not maintainable. The trial Court decided the said aspect as a preliminary issue and by order and decree dated 23.06.2005 held that the suit is not maintainable and directed it’s return. Questioning the said order, the plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.24 of 2005 before the I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The said appeal, on consideration has been allowed in part, where the appellate Court has held that the suit seeking to set aside the removal order and consequent, reinstatement is not maintainable before the civil Court. However, to the extent of the second relief namely recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest is concerned, the suit was held maintainable. The order of the lower appellate Court however, is not very clear and the last paragraph of the impugned order states as follows:- “ In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs, setting aside the order and decree, dated 23.06.2005 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in O.S.226/2003. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit afresh in the light of observations made in this order.” The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order of the lower appellate Court and has approached this Court by the present revision. Heard Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri T.S.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. The order impugned of lower appellate Court specifically gives a finding towards end of paragraph No.18, which reads as follows: “……..But under contract of service reinstatement is not possible of course the person who was removed from service illegally can claim damages from his employer. Therefore, looking or any point of view the relief of reinstatement with back wages is not a relief which can be granted by civil court under Section 9 of C.P.C.” To the extent of the said finding that the suit is not maintainable for the said relief of reinstatement, the plaintiffs apparently is not aggrieved as they have not filed any proceedings questioning the said finding of the lower appellate Court. We are therefore left with the said finding of the lower appellate Court wherein it was of the view that the suit for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- is very much maintainable in a civil Court and in that view of the matter the order and decree of the trial Court directing return of the plaint was found to be illegal, erroneous and liable to be set aside. However, the last paragraph of the order of the lower appellate Court does not reflect the said intention of the lower appellate Court and when it has said that the appeal is allowed in part directing the trial Court to proceed with O.S.No.226 of 2003 it was actually confining itself to the second relief prayed by the plaintiff namely recovery of Rs.2,00,000/-, which relief according to the appellate Court was maintainable in a civil Court. This revision petition therefore filed by the petitioner on the apprehension that entire suit is now open for trial is misplaced and it is reiterated that the suit for recovery of money as above is maintainable before the civil Court. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the impugned order warranting correction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Since the suit is of 2003, the trial Court shall now take up the suit expeditiously to the extent of relief of recovery of amounts as above and shall decide the suit expeditiously within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties undertake to cooperate with the trial Court in early disposal of the suit as directed above. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs. ______________________ VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR, J Date: 17.06.2010 Ivd