Regular Second Appeal No. 314 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 314 of 1992 Date of decision: May 19, 2010 Raj Kumar Sharma ...Appellant Versus Haryana State Electricity Board ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narinder Hooda, Advocate for the respondent. RANJIT SINGH J. Raj Kumar Sharma has filed this suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is entitled to be promoted to Sub Divisional Officer from the date his juniors were promoted i.e. 17.02.1982, May 1985 and 20.08.1987. The facts noticed in brief are that the appellant had joined the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to 'Board') as Junior Engineer Field on 09.01.1970. The appellant would claim that his work and conduct was good throughout and he was promoted to the rank of Junior Engineer which he joined on 30.03.1979. He was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar on 01.01.1976 vide order dated 01.11.1985. As per the appellant, he Regular Second Appeal No. 314 of 1992 2 was never communicated any adverse remarks throughout his service but still he was not promoted when some persons were so promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Officer on 20.02.1987. He accordingly had challenged this order being illegal to the extent that his name was not considered alongwith his juniors. The defendant appeared and contested the suit saying that his work and conduct was not satisfactory. His integrity was also doubted. As per the respondent, in the report for the period from 21.02.1982 to 31.12.1982, the appellant was conveyed some adverse remarks on 26.09.1983. It is stated that his case was considered for promotion in 1982 and 1987 alongwith his juniors but he was not found suitable for promotion. The trial Court framed the following issues:- 1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be promoted alongwith juniors? OPP 2)Whether the plaintiff has been discriminating against the rules and his name has not been considered? OPP 3)Whether this court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD 4)Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 5)Relief. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 04.04.1991 on the ground that the civil Court at Karnal has no jurisdiction to try the suit. However, the other issues were decided in favour of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved against the same, he filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The respondent-plaintiff, however, did not file any cross appeal to challenge the finding returned by the Regular Second Appeal No. 314 of 1992 3 trial Court on other issues. The First Appellate Court also upheld the view of the trial Court to say that the court at Karnal would not have any jurisdiction. Against this, the appellant has filed this Regular Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant made an attempt to say that the issue having been decided on merit in favour of the appellant, the courts were not justified in non-suiting the appellant only on the ground of jurisdiction. The counsel further submits that even if the Court at Karnal was lacking in jurisdiction, then the course which could be adopted was to return the plaint to the appellant to present before the Court of competent jurisdiction. In this regard, the counsel would refer to order 7 Rule 10, which regulates the return of plaint. This Rule make s a provision that subject to provision of Rule 10A, the court shall at any stage of suit return the plaint to be presented in the court in which the suit ought to have been instituted. By way of explanation, the doubts have also been removed and it is specifically provided that the court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in suit, the return of the plaint under sub rule. I see substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Even if it was found that the suit was not filed in the court of competent jurisdiction, the procedure as envisaged under Order 7 Rule 10 could have been followed. The said powers being available with the appellate Court, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted. The orders and decree under appeal are set aside. Let the record of this case be returned to the trial Court. Regular Second Appeal No. 314 of 1992 4 The appellant would be at liberty to move an application before the trial Court for return of the plaint. The record be returned expeditiously and preferably within two weeks from today. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly disposed of. May 19, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE