RSA No.1203 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1203 of 1993 Date of Decision: 5.05.2009 Rattan Singh Rathi ..Appellant Vs. Management Committee of S.D.Higher Secondary School, Narwana, ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.S.S.Narula, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This regular second appeal is directed by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1993 passed by the learned courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff to challenge the order dated 8.1.1984 to be illegal, null and void, stands dismissed. The plaintiff/appellant brought a suit to challenge the order on the plea that the defendant/respondent was a recognized institution, and service conditions of employees are governed by the Haryana Aided RSA No.1203 of 1993 2 Schools (Security of Service) Act, 1971, that the order impugned was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. During the pendency of the suit another suit was instituted by the plaintiff/appellant on 3.4.1987 to challenge the orders dated 16.10.1984, 26.11.1984, 30.4.1984 and 3.2.1987 passed by the respondent/Management Committee by claiming them to be null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff/appellant. Prior to the filing of the suit the plaintiff/appellant had instituted a suit to challenge the order dated 8.1.1984. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.12.1985 by making the following statement: “ Stated that I have been removed from services by the Managing Committee during the pendency of the suit. I will file a fresh suit after the decision of that as such the suit be allowed to be withdrawn and be consigned.” Vide order dated 1.12.1985 the suit was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. No permission was granted by the court to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. However, the plaintiff/appellant again challenged the order dated 8.1.1984 by way of separate suit. The suit was contested and one of the grounds taken was that the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant was not competent as he could not maintain a fresh suit on the same cause of action as the earlier suit was got dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. Learned courts below in view of the fact that earlier suit was RSA No.1203 of 1993 3 dismissed as withdrawn held that the second suit was not maintainable, consequently, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant. Mr.S.S.Narula, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration by this court:- “Whether the finding of the learned courts below holding the suit to be not maintainable is perverse, therefore, not sustainable in law?” In support of the substantial question of law learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the present case the suit was got withdrawn on the statement made by the counsel wherein he had reserved his right to file a fresh suit, after the decision of the subsequent suit filed by the appellant. Therefore, it could not be said that earlier order passed by the learned court could be treated a bar to the maintainability of fresh suit. It is contended that the substantial question of law be answered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and regular second appeal be allowed. The case be remanded back for adjudication on merit. However, on consideration of matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Once clearly no permission was granted by the learned court to maintain fresh suit on the same cause of action, nothing can be read into the order, as contended. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Learned courts below were right in holding that the second suit RSA No.1203 of 1993 4 to challenge the impugned order dated 8.1.1984 was not competent in view of the dismissal of the previous suit. The substantial question of law raised is answered against the appellant. Finding no merit in this appeal, it is ordered to be dismissed but with no order as to costs. 5.05.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge