IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 7204-C of 2011 & RSA No. 2629 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 10.2.2012. Khalil Ahmad --Appellant Versus Mohinder Singh & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. Present:- Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate for the appellant. *** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J C.M. No. 7204-C of 2011 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 35 days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. Delay of 35 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. RSA No. 2629 of 2011 (O&M) The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in the both the courts below. Plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction by pleading that he was posted as Horticulture Development Officer at Govt. Garden & Nursery, Pinangwa and had served as such for the last seven years. On 11.6.2003 an open auction for the lease of garden of Beri for the year 2003-04 had been held. Such auction was in favour of Harun son of Hussain for a sum of Rs.1,67,000/-. Harun was stated to have tendered Rs.68,000/- at the time of auction as per terms and conditions. The remaining amount of Rs.99,000/- had to be deposited by RSA No. 2629 of 2010(O&M) -2- 31.3.2004. Inspite of the best efforts made by plaintiff-appellant to recover the said amount, Harun had not deposited the remaining amount of Rs.99,000/- and accordingly, it was pleaded that the District Horticulture Officer, Gurgaon, defendant no.1 had initiated a deduction of Rs.5,000/- per month from the salary of the plaintiff-appellant. It was pleaded that such action was in violation of the principles of natural justice, without the plaintiff-appellant being at fault and in fact such deduction had already taken place w.e.f. 1.1.2005 and Rs.20,000/- had already been deducted. It was pleaded that the defendants are threatening to recover the entire amount of Rs.99,000/- from the salary of the plaintiff-appellant and accordingly, the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction had been filed. Upon notice the defendants filed a joint written statement taking a stand that the plaintiff-appellant was the overall Incharge of the Govt. Garden & Nursery. The lease in favour of Harun was admitted. Plaintiff-appellant was stated to be responsible for recovery of public money of Rs.99,000/- that had not been paid by the Contractor and accordingly dismissal of the suit had been prayed for. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff-appellant preferred a civil appeal and vide impugned judgement dated 17.1.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nuh the appeal has been dismissed. Accordingly, the plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court. I have heard Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant at length. The plaintiff-appellant had preferred a simple suit for injunction. There would be no dispute as regards the fact that the order RSA No. 2629 of 2010(O&M) -3- dated 19.11.2004 in respect to recovery of Rs.99,000/- has been passed by the concerned District Horticulture Officer and the same stands proved on record by the defendants as Ex.D-21. The recovery of Rs.5,000/- per month from the salary of the plaintiff-appellant is only in consequence to the basic order i.e. order dated 19.11.2004. Admittedly, the plaintiff-appellant has not sought any declaration as regards Ex.D-21 dated 19.11.2004, wherein he could have possibly raised various grounds in the nature of violation of the principles of natural justice, there being no fault on his part, correctness of liability of a Contractor being fastened upon him in the capacity of being working as Horticulture Development Officer and Incharge of the Govt. Garden & Nursery etc. Without having laid a challenge to the basic order dated 19.11.2004 and there having been no occasion for the court to have adjudicated upon the correctness and legality of the same, no relief in the nature of an injunction could have been granted as regards the consequences flowing from the basic order i.e. recovery of Rs.5,000/- per month. The conclusion and findings of both the courts below cannot be faulted with. There is no basis that would warrant interference in the impugned judgements and decree. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the present second appeal. For the reasons recorded above, the present second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Appeal dismissed. (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 10.2.2012. lucky Whether to be reported? No.