Wwm‘ WW“ mwwmw BY NO‘HFBCATIQN NO. 985WD£87WXX§* BfCEJGE AS; SPEClFiED 1N SCHEDULE I £2 11 OF THE GOURT FEES ACT W70. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ‘BILASPUR (C.G.) FIRST APPEAL NO. ‘01 § OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; 1908 APPELLANT PLAINTFF 229$“? ,Vz‘k’: Aviation, State of Chhattisgarh through its Department Dy. Secretaly— of W ‘1‘ m~1¢-'"”“é; g.“w~m V cum—Director, Aviation Shri Anil w :‘ wxaiiag wk” ma 9%; ~Q ' ‘\d$1.x”«w..om E’I‘uteja, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) w, ”wow r § j (‘A m, 3231-» RESPONDENT Abhay Maheshwari, S/o Not Known, E DEFENDANT 303, Venus Gaurav Galaxy, Phase—II, Meera Road (E), Distt. Thane, Maharashtra, PIN 401 107 Arising out of Judgment and Decree nassed bV IX‘h Additional District Judge (FTC), Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Presiding Officer Kanta Martin dated 22/07/2008, “in Civil Suit No. 5—B/2007,”p’aixties being State of Chhattisgarh Vs. AbhaV Maheshwari. a? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT VRILA SPUR, First Appeal N0, 191 of2008 / 4/ FIRST APPFAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODF OF CIVIL PROCFDLmE (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J4 Present : Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocata for the Stata/appellzmt Shri SS Rajputj Advocate for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 09.02101 1) The instant First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2008, passed by the 1X01 Add!) Districf Judgg (FTC) Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 5—B/O7, whereby tha plaintiff’s suit has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that: the plaintiff filed a suit fer recovery of Rs. 3 Lakhs against the respmident/defendant inter~ alia on the following grounds : The defendant was appointed on the post of Sr. Helieoptet Engineer wef. 22.11.2001 fey a period of five years on a‘ salary of Rs. 25,000,1— per month The defendant was g appointed to manage the Helicopter said to be purehased hy the Chhattisgarh Govt. ii. According to the conditions mentioned in the appointment order, the plaintiff sent the defendant for requisite twining / APPELLANT State of Plaintiff Versus REsPONDENTs ‘ Abhay Maheshwari Defemlant 2 6% for obtaining the mainmnancca liccznce 10 Germany. The State Govt. inve‘Sted a sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs on his framing As per appointmont ordor, the dofendam hag: to sowe the plaintiffYState for a period of five years 6136 he will have, to compensato the plaintiff with a gum ofR3. 3 Lakhs which was the amount of expenses inourrod by the: plaintiff on his training. iii. The defendant resigned on 12082004 and joined hi5: services in Ajal India Ltd. Without paying the i‘equisit‘o amount ofRsi 3 Lakhs Le. amoum ofoxpensos inclined by the plaintiff in his training. The defondant filed his wrinen statemont denyino tho claim and pleaded that The defendant has iiover assured, tho plaintiff that after resignation he will pay Em amount ofRsi 3 LakhS to the plaintiff. The defendant also claimed Rs. 4,85,000/— against the plaiiitiii‘ on the ground that after resignation he rendered services on several oeoaeions zmd submitted hi3 bills which were not paid by the plaintiff. The trial court framed issues, partieS led their evicl enoes. The trial court on appreciation of evidence adduced and material plaeedi held the defendant left the sewice Without giving three month’s prior notice. expensee of 3 Lakhs is not incuired by the plaintiff iv. .wmmwa x wmmmyasmwwmmmwmm 09 on him, and therefore the plaintifT is net entitlad for {my amount. Counter Glaim was also dismissed, Shri GD Waswani, learned Govt Advocate appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit then admittedly there was a clause in the appointment order according to which the defendant was liable for payment of Rs. 3 LakhS in case he leaves serviee before expiry of period of five years; and therefore, the trial court has erred in dismissing the suit. On the other hand, Shri SS Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant supported the judgment and decree and vehemently argued that the trial eouit has rightly dismissed the suit and the same deserves to be upheld. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and records ofthe court below. The appointment order was not exhibited before the trial eourt to show that there was a condition regarding payment of Rs. 3 Lakhs in case he leaves service before expiry of period of five years Thus, plaintiff failed to prove any contract by whieh defendant may be held liable for sue-h payment. Further, as per the copy of the order of appointment shown by Shri Waswani, the defendant was required to execute bond so as to bind himself in case he leaves service before expiry of period of five years. No such bond was taken. Evidence also reveal that the plaintiff KXQ did not spend anything on the training of defendant maaning thereby the plaintiff did not incur any amQunt on defmdant’s training. Flmher Vide Ex. D/10, the plaintiff pemnitmd thts defendant to resign without claiming any amount which is said to be spent on him in hiS training. On re-appreciation of entire evidence, material placed on record and considering the fact that contract regarding payment of 3 Laklis between the plaintiff and defendant has not been proved by the plaintiff, in the considered opinion ofthis court, the trial court has rightly dismi$$ed the suit. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. SW: t N.K. Agrawal Judge