1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 358 OF 1993 Vinayak N. Satpute through LRs- Smt. Sudhatai & Ors. vs. Dinanath B. Nandurkar & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 30, 2008. Heard Shri Gordey, Advocate for the appellant – Legal heirs of original plaintiff and Shri A.A. Senad, Advocate holding for Shri Parchure, Advocate for respondent No.1. During hearing, it has become clear that the original plaintiff had filed suit seeking injunction to safeguard his continuation on the post of Assistant Head Master of Bharat Vidyalaya, Hinganghat, and he has also added a prayer by amendment to point out that rival claimant (present Respondent No.1) was already appointed as Head Master of Bharat Vidyalaya, Secondary School at Vela and as such he had no right to claim post of Assistant Head Master, which was being claimed by original plaintiff. The suit was decreed and said judgment and decree has been reversed by lower appellate Court. Thereafter, present Second Appeal 2 has been admitted. It is an admitted position that the original plaintiff has expired in the meanwhile and his legal heirs are brought on record as per orders dated 22.1.2008. Second Appeal was to be considered along Writ Petition No.2159 of 1989. Said Writ Petition is already disposed of by the Division Bench by observing that claim of present plaintiff made therein for 20% officiating allowance as Head Master could be considered only after adjudication in present Second Appeal. It appears that original plaintiff continued to function as Assistant Head Master and thereafter was also given officiating charge as Head Master. There is no prayer made by him for his reinstatement as Assistant Head master for any period after the suit was filed and there is no prayer also for grant of any monetary compensation on account of his removal from said post of Assistant Head Master. The prayers made by him in plaint are already considered by me. In this background, it is apparent that relief which was claimed by the deceased – plaintiff is already given to him and in the suit as filed, he was not in a position to seek anything more. After his death, therefore, challenge in present Second 3 Appeal has become infructuous. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.