3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 236/2008 & CM 16481 /2008 S.K.SRIVASTAVA Appellant Through Mr.Harihar Pratap Singh, Advocate versus ASHIMA NEB, IRS & ORS. Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.SHALI ORDER % 24.11.2008 1. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard. 2. The appellant had filed a suit for declaration bearing Suit No.230/2008 in which it was prayed that a declaration be issued to the effect that respondent nos.l and 2-Ms.Ashima Neb, IRS and Ms.Ashimina Nela are one of the same persons. Copy of the plaint has not been placed on record but it is apparent from the reading of the judgment dated 24^^ July, 2008. In addition to this, the appellant had also made as many as 37 persons as defendants/respondents. The sum and substance as has been alleged in the plaint are to the effect that defendant Nos.5,19 and 20 and some other defendants are indulging in sexual harassment of respondent Nos.l and 2 and other employees. It is not relevant for the time being to go into those details. RSA No.236/2008 &CM No. 16481/2008 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:26.07.2024 17:32:56 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Learned Civil Judge after giving a hearing to the appellant passed a detailed and reasoned order dismissing the suit both on the ground of mis- joinder of parties as well as on the ground that there is no cause of action to file the present suit. While dismissing the suit on the ground of cause of action, it has been referred to by the learned Civil Judge that a suit for declaration can be entertained only if there is a denial of a I legal character or right as to any property by the defendants/respondents. Since in the instant case, there was no such denial of right of the appellant,' therefore, such a suit was stated to be without any cause of action. Similarly, as the question of joinder of parties, the learned Civil Judge was very critical that in order to forestall the departmental enquiry initiated against the appellant, he has tried to use the present suit with a view to delay the departmental proceedings and bring unnecessary pressure on the respondents/defendants; The suit was accordingly dismissed on 24^ July, 2008 by a detailed and reasoned order by the learned Civil Judge after imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- by placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court titled as Salem Advocates Bar Association Vs. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344. 3. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment, the appellant preferred the First Appeal which came to be heard by Sh.S.S.Handa, learned Additional District Judge. After the appeal, the learned RSA No.236/2008 &CM No.16481/2008 . Page 2 of 4 2> Additional District Judge although did not agree with the Civil Judge with regard to the observations of mis-joinder of parties and that non suiting of the appellant on this ground. So far as the second issue with regard to the rising of cause of action is concerned, the learned ADJ also was of the view that the plaint is liable to be rejected as it did not disclose any cause of action. Learned Additional District Judge has also passed a detailed and reasoned order for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action. ,4. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The second appeal by any appellant must raise a substantial question of law and only then it will be entertained. Learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to formulate any substantial question of law with regard to the rejection of his plaint. All the questions raised by him are only with regard to the question of fact. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed on account of the fact that it does not involve any substantial question of law. In addition to this, both the Courts are correctly of the view that the case does not involve any cause of action qua the appellant on account of the fact that the declaration which has been sought by the appellant is to the effect that respondent Nos.l and 2 are the same persons. This in any way does not affect the legal right and the character of the appellant. Though the appellant is presenting himself to be a conscious keeper of the Indian Revenue Service but at RSA No.236/2008 &CM No. 16481/2008 Page 3 of 4 b the same time he has been making reckless allegations against the employees of the said service which is apparent from the judgment of the two Courts below. 5. In my considered opinion, Courts below has rightly imposed cost in order to curb the frivolous litigation filed by the appellant. Dismissed. November 24, 2008 V.K. SHALI, J. RN RSA No.236/2008 &CM No. 16481/2008 Page 4 of 4