Harpal Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.7.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant seeking declaration to challenge the order of dismissal has been ordered to be dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a suit to challenge the order dated 9.9.1991 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, ordering dismissal of the appellant from service by invoking provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. It was pleaded by the plaintiff/appellant that a notice u/s 80 of the CPC was issued, as his grievance was not redressed despite notice the suit was filed immediately thereafter in the year 2005.

The suit was contested, wherein an objection was taken that the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant was not maintainable, as against order of, the plaintiff had preferred civil writ petition in this Court. The writ petition was dismissed by way of detailed order on 2.5.1995. The Letters Patent Appeal filed against the said judgment of the Hon''ble Single Judge was also dismissed, and the SLP also met with the same fate. After the plaintiff/appellant was unsuccessful in the constitutional remedies availed by him, he chose to issue notice u/s 80 of the CPC in the year 2004. The suit was, thus, said to be even barred by limitation.

The learned Courts below dismissed the suit by holding it to be not maintainable in view of dismissal of writ petition as well as being barred by limitation.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law:

Whether the judgments and decree based on false and frivolous documents are sustainable in law?

Whether the dismissal of SLP in limine operates as res judicata to maintain the civil suit?

Whether in view of the fresh evidence coming to the knowledge of the parties, fresh suit could be filed?

In support of the substantial questions of law, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that great injustice has been done to the appellant/plaintiff, as his meritorious service of 20 years has been ignored while ordering his dismissal.

It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the material placed on record by way of evidence showed that the plaintiff/appellant has not been treated legally and, therefore, the order of dismissal was on the face of it perverse.

This argument is totally misconceived and unwarranted. Once plaintiff/appellant chose to challenge the order of dismissal by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, and the writ petition was dismissed by passing a detailed order and thereafter letters patent appeal was also dismissed by this Court, mere fact that SLP against said order was dismissed in limine, cannot give right to the plaintiff/appellant to challenge the order after more than 10 years, merely by issuing a notice u/s 80 CPC. Issuance of notice u/s 80 CPC does not give a cause of action. The cause of action to the plaintiff/appellant arose when he was dismissed from service.

The suit was barred by principle of res judicata. It cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Courts below is based on appreciation of false and frivolous documents. The judgment is based on the order passed by this Court in civil writ petition, which by no strecth of imagination can be said to be false or frivolous document, as contended.

It is settled law that the decision on merit in the writ petition operates as res judicata in the subsequent suit on same cause of action and merely because SLP against the said order is dismissed in limine could not give cause of action to the plaintiff/appellant to maintain the suit.

Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sardarmal, to contend that it is not open to the State to raise plea of limitation to defeat the honest claim of the citizen.

The observation of the Hon''ble Madhya Pradesh High Court is being mis-applied by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The Hon''ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh nowhere held that the Limitation Act does not apply claim against State, rather it is settled law that State is also bound by the law of limitation as much as any other private person.

It was on the facts and circumstances of peculiar case that the Court felt that the honest claim of citizen was sought to be defeated by plea of limitation. It was held that the State should not take such a plea to defeat such rights. In the present case, the claim of the appellant stood rejected by this Court and affirmed upto Hon''ble Supreme Court. It was thereafter a time barred suit was filed. The plea of plaintiff was not honest.

The learned Courts below were fully justified in holding the suit to be barred by limitation.

The substantial questions of law raised are answered against the appellant.

No merit.

Dismissed.