1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No. 135 of 2007 J.K. RAKHECHA V/S STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR & ANR. Mr. ANIL VYAS, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. PK LOHRA, for the respondent Date of Order : 3.7.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. It was sought to be argued that learned Courts below have wrongly interpreted the provisions of para 10.8 of the settlement, in the manner, that workman himself is also required to travel alongwith family, in order to be entitled to claim the Leave Fare Concession. The other submission made is, that the amount was paid to the appellant in the month of May 1987, while the recovery has been started to be effected from August 1993, which was clearly barred by time. I have considered the submissions. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, no issue in this regard has been framed, and the three 2 issues framed, which have been decided by the learned trial Court, do not show, that this question was ever pressed into service by the appellant. That part, a look at the appellate Court judgment also shows, that the contentions raised before it have been cataloged in para 4, and therein it is not the contention. Even in the memo of appeal before me, it is not alleged, that this point was argued before the learned lower Appellate Court. In that view of the matter, this contention need not detain me. Taking the other contention, the provisions of para 10.8 have been quoted by the learned trial Court in the judgment, and a look thereat shows, that it contains the proviso, clearly contemplating, that the period between the date of commencement of journey by the family, and the date on which the workman himself commences his journey, should not exceed four months, otherwise it would lapse. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said, that provisions of para 10.8 have wrongly been construed. Thus, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, and the same is, therefore, dismissed. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/