# Virendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 353
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-05-29
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6205 of 2008
- **Bench:** Sabhajeet Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41383
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 226-Dismissal
from Service-petitioner lost his left eye
in accident during election duly-disability
assessed 90%-District Magistrate given
compensation
of
Rs.5000/-
with
assurance to give full composition after
receiving
grant
from
Governmentsuffered physically handicapped pain for
a long period-as per estimated cost of
standard Knee (A.K.) System applied for
medical
assistance
of
Rs.1,85,000/-
government sanctioned only 1,38,000/-
after
collecting
balance
amount
purchased artificial Knee-claimed for
medical
reimbursement-
suspensioneven
after
receiving
reply-without
holding formal enquiry passed dismissal
order-held-illegal-direction
for
reinstatement with full back wages
during suspension period given.

Held: Para 16

Besides
aforestated
reasons,
having
humanitarian approach in the matter, I
find that once the petitioner has lost his
leg in the Government employment due
to accident taken place while he was on
election duty, he cannot be punished so
as to loose his employment itself due to
which he had lost his leg, as such the
impugned
order
dated
15.11.2007
passed by respondent no.2, in my
considered opinion, for the aforestated
reasons cannot be sustained and the
same is hereby quashed. The petitioner
is reinstated in service with continuity of
service from the date of impugned order
till the date of reinstatement and he
shall be paid his full salary during the
aforesaid
period,
he
was
out
of
employment on account of impugned
order passed against him. The arrears of
salary shall be paid to him within a
period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of the order
passed
by
this
Court
before
the
concerned respondent.

## Text

2 All] Virendra Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and another
353
Development Authority) giving rise cause
of action of writ petition, in my opinion,
is not maintainable before the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar and is
liable to be dismissed. I am of the further
view that so long as the aforesaid orders
passed
by
Vice-Chairman
of
Development Authority under Section27(1) of the Act,1973 remains intact and
is not set-aside by the competent
authority, the Civil court would not be
able to grant any permanent injunction or
temporary injunction in favour of the
petitioner in the said suit.

10. So far as, applicability of the
provisions of Section-52 of the Act, in
respect
of
the
alleged
repair
and
maintenance activities undertaken by the
petitioner is concerned, it is to be pointed
out that the order of demolition of
building of the petitioner was passed by
Vice-Chairman
of
the
Development
Authority after affording opportunity of
hearing to him. Since the impugned order
of demolition has been passed holding
that the activities undertaken by the
petitioner are in contravention of the
provisions of Act or that were without
approval
or
sanction
of
competent
authority and said order can not be called
in question before the Civil Court in view
of Section-27(4) and Section-37 of the
Act, therefore, Civil court in civil suit
cannot be held to be capable of taking
different view in the matter than that of
taken by the competent authority, as such,
in
my
considered
opinion,
despite
provisions of Section-52 of the Act, Civil
court is not competent to examine
correctness or otherwise legality of
decision
of
Vice
Chairman
of
Development
Authority
taken
under
Section 27(1) of the Act, 1973 otherwise
the object and purpose underlying the said
provisions of the Act would be defeated.
In my opinion, aforesaid provisions of the
Act embodies sound public policy to
exclude intervention of the courts in the
orders of the officers of Development
Authority under Section 15 and 27 of the
Act, 1973. In this view of the matter, I am
not inclined to examine correctness or
otherwise legality of impugned orders
passed by the courts below while refusing
to grant temporary injunction to the
petitioner
during
the
pendency
of
aforesaid civil suit.

11. Since I have held that original
suit instituted by the petitioner is not
maintainable and liable to be dismissed,
therefore, the said suit stands dismissed.
Accordingly the Registrar General of this
Court is directed to communicate this
order forthwith to the District Judge,
Kanpur Nagar who shall place the order
on the record of the suit in question and
concerned court is directed to consign the
record of the case to the office.

12.

In
view
of
aforesaid
observations and directions, the writ
petition stands dismissed on the ground of
alternative remedy.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SABHAJEET YADAV, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6205 of 2008

Virendra Pal Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Singh
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
Sri Shubhranshu Shekhar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri H.M.B. Sinha
S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Dismissal
from Service-petitioner lost his left eye
in accident during election duly-disability
assessed 90%-District Magistrate given
compensation
of
Rs.5000/-
with
assurance to give full composition after
receiving
grant
from
Governmentsuffered physically handicapped pain for
a long period-as per estimated cost of
standard Knee (A.K.) System applied for
medical
assistance
of
Rs.1,85,000/-
government sanctioned only 1,38,000/-
after
collecting
balance
amount
purchased artificial Knee-claimed for
medical
reimbursement-
suspensioneven
after
receiving
reply-without
holding formal enquiry passed dismissal
order-held-illegal-direction
for
reinstatement with full back wages
during suspension period given.

Held: Para 16

Besides
aforestated
reasons,
having
humanitarian approach in the matter, I
find that once the petitioner has lost his
leg in the Government employment due
to accident taken place while he was on
election duty, he cannot be punished so
as to loose his employment itself due to
which he had lost his leg, as such the
impugned
order
dated
15.11.2007
passed by respondent no.2, in my
considered opinion, for the aforestated
reasons cannot be sustained and the
same is hereby quashed. The petitioner
is reinstated in service with continuity of
service from the date of impugned order
till the date of reinstatement and he
shall be paid his full salary during the
aforesaid
period,
he
was
out
of
employment on account of impugned
order passed against him. The arrears of
salary shall be paid to him within a
period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of the order
passed
by
this
Court
before
the
concerned respondent.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.)

1. By this petition, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 15.11.2007
(Annexure-1 of the writ petition) passed
by
respondent
no.2,
whereby
the
petitioner has been dismissed from
service while working on the post of
Junior Clerk in Tehsil Mawana, District
Meerut and a sum of Rs.1,38,750/- along
with interest thereon was directed to be
recovered from the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that
while working on the post of Junior Clerk
in Tehsil-Mawana, District-Meerut, the
petitioner was placed under suspension
vide order dated 1.04.2006 on the
allegation that he had submitted a forged
cash receipt in respect of purchase of
artificial limb. Thereafter respondent no.2
served a charge sheet dated 8.06.2006 to
the
petitioner.
On
20.06.2006
the
petitioner
had
submitted
his
reply,
whereby the charges levelled against him
were denied. It is stated that inquiry
officer conducted the inquiry behind the
back of the petitioner without giving him
opportunity of personal hearing and
without examining the proprietor or
authorized person of Endolite India Ltd.
and submitted the inquiry report on
5.06.2007. It is stated that after receipt of
inquiry
report
dated
5.06.2007
the
respondent
no.2
namely
District
Magistrate, Meerut gave a show cause
notice dated 27.06.2007 to the petitioner
without enclosing/appending the inquiry
report, which has caused grave prejudice
to the petitioner and ultimately the order
of dismissal was passed against him and a
recovery of Rs.1,38,750/- along with
2 All] Virendra Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and another
355
interest thereon was directed to be made
from him vide impugned order dated
15.11.2007, hence this petition.

3. The backdrop of the case behind
initiation of disciplinary inquiry against
the petitioner was that while performing
election duty the petitioner met with an
accident on 11.11.1995 and got fractured
his left leg which was ultimately imputed.
The disability caused to the petitioner was
assessed at 90% and only a sum of Rs.
five thousand (5000/-) was paid to him by
the
District
Magistrate,
Meerut
as
compensation with the assurance that the
Government will provide funds for his
artificial leg. It is stated that in order to
obtain
artificial
leg
the
petitioner
requested Endolite India Ltd. to give the
quotation so that the petitioner may apply
to the State Government for the payment
of money required for the artificial leg
under
the
provisions
of
relevant
Government order. Thereupon Endolite
India Ltd. vide letter dated 16.06.1998
informed the petitioner about the cost of
artificial leg, which was quoted to be
Rs.1,85,000/- for Standard Knee (A.K.)
system. A photostat copy of quotation
letter dated 16.06.1998 is on record as
Annexure-3 of the writ petition. After
receiving the aforesaid quotation the
petitioner applied on 14.07.1998 to the
respondent no.2 for sanctioning amount of
Rs.1,36,250/- for purchasing the artificial
limb which is 75% of the total cost i.e.
Rs.1,85,000/-. It is stated that the matter
was kept pending for about 7 years and
the petitioner was compelled to bear the
torture of disability as his repeated request
could not bring any favorable result till
April, 2005. Ultimately vide order dated
1.04.2005 the State Government had
sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,38,750/- with
certain conditions. The aforesaid order of
Government was also communicated to
the petitioner and after compliance of
requisite
formalities
a
sum
of
Rs.1,38,750/- was paid to him. Thereafter
the
petitioner
arranged
a
sum
of
Rs.46,250/- from his own resources to pay
a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- to Endolite India
Ltd. for purchasing left artificial leg
Standard Knee (A.K.) System Fitting. It is
stated that the petitioner paid a sum of
Rs.1,85,000/- to Endolite India Ltd.
against cash receipt No.9205 dated
17.10.2005 and got the left artificial leg
fitted. A photostat copy of cash receipt
No.9205 is on record as Annexure-8 of
the writ petition. It is stated that after
returning back to Meerut the petitioner
applied for reimbursement of amount of
Rs.46,250/-
vide
application
dated
18.10.2005. Along with the aforesaid
application
the
petitioner
submitted
original cash receipt issued by Endolite
India Ltd. on 17.10.2005 but was
surprisingly
enough
an
order
of
suspension dated 1.04.2006 followed by
the aforesaid disciplinary action taken
against him.

4. A detail counter affidavit on
behalf of State has been filed in the writ
petition and assertions made in the writ
petition have been disputed and denied
and action taken against the petitioner is
sought to be justified.

5. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned
Senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned
standing
counsel
for
the
respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that admittedly
the petitioner is Government employee,
therefore, the disciplinary inquiry was
required to be held in consonance with the
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
provisions
of
Article
311
(2)
of
Constitution of India inasmuch as the
relevant provisions of Rule 7, 8 and 9 of
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules 1999 and since the
aforesaid provisions of Constitution and
Government
Servant
Discipline
and
Appeal Rules, virtually embodied audi
alteram partem rules of principles of
natural justice, therefore, the disciplinary
inquiry was liable to be held in
consonance with the aforesaid rules but
the said disciplinary inquiry was held in
violation of rules of disciplinary inquiry
as well as principles of natural justice.
While
substantiating
the
contention,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the solitary material i.e.
letter of Sri V.K. Bajaj dated 7.02.2006,
which is foundation of misconduct
alleged against the petitioner, has not
been proved before inquiry officer, as
neither Sri V.K. Bajaj nor any one else,
on behalf of Brigadier V.K. Bajaj from
Endolite
India
Ltd.
Company
was
examined by the department before the
enquiry officer nor the petitioner was
given opportunity to cross-examine him,
and the aforesaid letter was relied upon
against the petitioner. The copy of inquiry
report was also not supplied to the
petitioner along with show cause notice,
therefore, the said inquiry report could not
be acted upon. Having regard to the facts
and
circumstances
of
the
case,
punishment awarded to the petitioner is
also
much
excessive
and
highly
disproportionate to the gravity of charges
levelled against him, therefore, the action
taken against him is not sustainable in the
eye of law and liable to be struck down.

7. In view of aforesaid submission
of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
first
question
which
requires
consideration is that as to whether the
letter dated 7.02.2006 sent by Brigadier
V.K. Bajaj, Director Endolite India Ltd.,
which is sole material and foundation of
alleged misconduct against the petitioner
has been proved by the department during
the disciplinary inquiry or not?

8. In this connection it is necessary
to point out that from perusal of chargesheet issued against the petitioner it
appears that all the charges
were
grounded on the basis of letter dated
7.02.2006 of Brigadier V.K. Bajaj,
Director of Endolite India Ltd. Company.
By the aforesaid letter it was informed to
the Secretary, Government of Uttar
Pradesh that cash receipt no.9205 dated
17th October, 2005 purported to be issued
by Endolite India Ltd. in favour of
petitioner is forged and fake. The
company had never issued such a receipt.
It was also informed that the petitioner
had visited to the Limb Fitting Centre of
the company on 27th September, 2001 and
made necessary inquiries about the
various prosthetic systems. He was fitted
with
an
Atlas
Knee
System
for
Rs.30,000/-
vide
company's
invoice
no.258 dated 3rd October, 2001. He had
cleared the payment by cash. The account
of statement was also attached with the
aforesaid letter. The petitioner had denied
the charges levelled in the charge-sheet
and also disputed genuineness of the said
letter of Sri V.K. Bajaj in his reply to the
charge-sheet (Annexure-11 of the writ
petition) and further stated that it is not in
dispute that the petitioner's left leg was
fractured on account of an accident taken
place on 11.11.1995 while he was on
election duty which was ultimately
imputed. Thereafter he had purchased
several artificial limbs and got them fitted
at several occasions. In the year 2001 also
2 All] Virendra Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and another
357
he had purchased artificial leg from
Endolite
India
Ltd.
Company
for
Rs.30,000/- by making cash payment
from his own pocket without seeking any
reimbursement from the Government.
However, after obtaining Government aid
he had again purchased artificial limb
from aforesaid company for Rs.1,85,000/-
on 17.10.2005 but by the aforesaid letter
dated 7.2.2006, it appears that for the
purposes of evading the Trade Tax and
Income Tax the company might have
written such letter which cannot be said to
be genuine letter but the inquiry officer
has relied upon the aforesaid letter in
support of the charges levelled against the
petitioner without examining Sri V.K.
Bajaj
and
without
permitting
the
petitioner to cross-examine him during
the said inquiry.

9. From a close analysis of
provisions of Article 311(2) of the
Constitution and Rule 7 of 1999 rules, it
is clear that the aforesaid provisions of
Constitution and statutory rules have
virtually embodied the audi alteram
partem rules of principles of natural
justice, which means that no person shall
be condemned without hearing. The
content and import of audi alteram
partem rule of principles of natural justice
has received consideration of Hon'ble
Apex Court from time to time in context
of disciplinary inquiry. Some of the
decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court are
referred hereinafter.

10. In Meenglas Tea Estate V. The
Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 Hon'ble
Apex Court while explaining the content
and import of principles of natural justice
in domestic enquiry in para-24 of the
decision held as under:
"It is an elementary principle that a
person who is required to answer a
charge must know not only the accusation
but also the testimony by which the
accusation is supported. He must be given
a fair chance to hear the evidence in
support of the charge and to put such
relevant questions by way of crossexamination as he desires. Then he must
be given a chance to rebut the evidence
led against him. This is the barest
requirement of an enquiry of this
character and this requirement must be
substantially fulfilled before the result of
the enquiry can be accepted. A departure
from this requirement in effect throws the
burden upon the person charged to repel
the charge without first making it out
against him."

11. In M/s Bareilly Electricity
Supply Company Vs. Workmen and
others (1971) 2 SCC 617 while dealing
with
the
standard
of
proof
in
disciplinary/domestic inquiry in para 14
of the decision the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that the application of
principle of natural justice in domestic
enquiry does not imply that what is not
evidence can be acted upon. For ready
reference the relevant portion of para 14
of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

"But the application of principle of
natural justice does not imply that what
is not evidence can be acted upon. On
the other hand what it means is that no
materials can be relied upon to establish
a contested fact, which are not spoken to
by persons who are competent to speak
about them and are subjected to crossexamination by the party against whom
they are sought to be used. When a
document is produced in a Court or a
Tribunal the questions that naturally
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
arise is, is it a genuine document, what
are its contents and are the statements
contained
therein
true.
When
the
Appellant produced the balance sheet
and profit and loss account of the
company, it does not by its mere
production amount to a proof of it or of
the truth of the entries therein. If these
entries are challenged the Appellant
must prove each of such entries by
producing the books and speaking from
the entries made therein. If a letter or
other document is produced to establish
some fact which is relevant to the
enquiry the writer must be produced or
his affidavit in respect thereof be filed
and opportunity afforded to the opposite
party who challenges this fact. This is
both in accord with principles of natural
justice
as
also
according
to
the
procedure under Order XIX, Civil
Procedure Code and the Evidence Act
both of which incorporate these general
principles."

12. In view of law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Bareilly
Electricity Supply Company's case
(supra), it is clear that application of
principle of natural justice does not imply
that what is not evidenced can be acted
upon. What it means is that no materials
can be relied upon to establish a contested
fact, which are not spoken by persons
who are competent to speak about them
and are subjected to cross-examination by
the party against whom they are sought to
be used. When a document is produced in
a Court or a Tribunal the questions that
naturally arise is, is it a genuine
document, what are its contents and are
the statements contained therein true. If a
letter or other document is produced to
establish some fact which is relevant to
the enquiry the writer must be produced
or his affidavit in respect thereof be filed
and opportunity afforded to the opposite
party who challenges this fact.

13. Now applying the said legal
principle in given facts and circumstances
of the case, I find that it is not in dispute
that the letter of Brigadier V.K. Bajaj
dated 7.2.2006 sent to the Government
was sole material which was foundation
of all the charges of misconduct levelled
against the petitioner. Said letter was not
proved by writer of the aforesaid letter
Brigadier V.K. Bajaj before the inquiry
officer despite thereof it was relied upon
by inquiry officer against the petitioner,
as such the petitioner could not get
opportunity to cross-examine Sri V.K.
Bajaj
about
the
genuineness
and
correctness of the contents thereof, though
the genuineness and the contents of
aforesaid letter had been specifically
doubted and disputed by him in reply to
the charge sheet filed by him. Therefore,
in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Meenglas Tea Estate's case
(supra),
unless
the
charges
are
established against the petitioner by
department before the inquiry officer, the
petitioner could not be asked to repel the
charges without first making it out against
him. In this view of the matter, I am of
considered opinion that the departmentrespondent has utterly failed to establish
the charges levelled against the petitioner,
therefore, the disciplinary authority could
not act upon the inquiry report submitted
by inquiry officer holding the petitioner
guilty of charges levelled against him. I
am of the considered opinion that in given
facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioner was entitled to be exonerated
from the charges levelled against him for
want of proof of the charges by the
department concerned before inquiry
2 All] Virendra Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and another
359
officer during said inquiry, but the inquiry
officer
instead
of
exonerating
the
petitioner from the charges, held him
guilty of charges, therefore, such inquiry
report could not be acted upon by the
Disciplinary Authority and impugned
order of punishment could not be passed
against him.

14. At this juncture, it is necessary
to point out that where disciplinary
inquiry held against Government servant
is found faulty either on account of
infraction of rules of disciplinary inquiry
and/or principles of natural justice and/or
provisions of Article 311 (2) of the
Constitution, normally this Court does not
exonerate the delinquent employee from
the
charges
levelled
against
such
employee,
instead
thereof
the
Government employee is reinstated in
service by setting aside the order of
punishment
with
liberty
to
the
Disciplinary Authority to hold fresh
inquiry from the stage at which it was
found faulty, but in a case like present, as
stated earlier, department has failed to
prove the charges levelled against the
petitioner for the simple reason that all the
charges levelled in the charge-sheet were
grounded on the facts disclosed in the
letter of Brigadier V.K. Bajaj dated
7.2.2006 and while replying the chargesheet the petitioner had specifically
disputed the genuineness and correctness
of the contents of letter of Dr. V.K. Bajaj
dated 7.02.2006 with further assertion that
his left leg was fractured in election duty
on 11.11.1995 which was ultimately
imputed. Thereafter he had purchased
several artificial limbs and got them fitted
at several occasions. In the year 2001 also
he had purchased artificial limb from
Endolite India Ltd. for Rs.30,000/- from
his own pocket but did not seek any
reimbursement of the said amount from
the Government. However, for purchasing
the artificial leg in the year 2005, he made
application for sanction of Rs.1,85,000/-
and after sanction of the said amount from
State Government he had purchased an
artificial limb from the said company, by
making payment of Rs.1,85000/- against
cash receipt No.9205 dated 17.10.2005.
But reason best known to the said
company, it has informed the Government
about the purchase of artificial limb of
2001 by denying the purchase of artificial
leg by the petitioner dated 17.10.2005. In
this view of the matter, since the
petitioner
had
already
doubted
the
genuineness of the said letter of Dr. V.K.
Bajaj about which the Disciplinary
Authority as well as inquiry officers were
aware, despite thereof, department did not
choose to examine Dr. V.K. Bajaj before
inquiry
officer
knowing
the
legal
consequences ensuing therefrom, in such
a situation, in my considered opinion, this
Court has hardly any legal obligation to
advise the Government department, how
they would establish the charge against
the petitioner in such disciplinary inquiry.
Therefore,
in
in
given
facts
and
circumstances of the case it would not be
appropriate to permit the Disciplinary
Authority to improve the case of
department by permitting to hold fresh
inquiry against the petitioner.

15. There is yet another reason
which has impelled me for not permitting
the fresh disciplinary inquiry against the
petitioner. It is not in dispute that when
the petitioner was met with the said
accident in the year 1995 while he was on
election
duty
and
he
was
paid
compensation in tune of Rs.5000/- only
with assurance that he will be provided
artificial limb at Government expenses. In
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
given facts and circumstances, in case
adequate compensation would have been
paid to the petitioner due to injuries
sustained by him due to which he had lost
his leg, he would have been paid much
more compensation than the amount of
Rs.1,38,750/- sought to be recovered from
him, as such it cannot be held that on
account of money withdrawn by him from
the Government exchequer in the tune of
aforesaid amount, the Government has
suffered any loss liable to be indemnified
by the petitioner. It is not a case where the
aforesaid money withdrawn by the
petitioner can be connected with the habit
of the petitioner for doing same kind of
misconduct,
even
if
the
alleged
misconduct is assumed to be proved
against him.

16. Besides aforestated reasons,
having humanitarian approach in the
matter, I find that once the petitioner has
lost
his
leg
in
the
Government
employment due to accident taken place
while he was on election duty, he cannot
be
punished
so
as
to
loose
his
employment itself due to which he had
lost his leg, as such the impugned order
dated 15.11.2007 passed by respondent
no.2, in my considered opinion, for the
aforestated reasons cannot be sustained
and the same is hereby quashed. The
petitioner is reinstated in service with
continuity of service from the date of
impugned
order
till
the
date
of
reinstatement and he shall be paid his full
salary during the aforesaid period, he was
out of employment on account of
impugned order passed against him. The
arrears of salary shall be paid to him
within a period of two months from the
date of production of certified copy of the
order passed by this Court before the
concerned respondent.
17. In view of aforesaid discussion it
is not necessary to go into other questions
involved in the writ petition, as the writ
petition stands decided on short point
discussed hereinbefore.

18. With the aforesaid observation
and direction, writ petition succeeds and
is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SABHAJEET YADAV, J.

Civil Misc. Writ petition no.459 of 2009

M/s K.G. Plasto Chem (I) Private Limited

 ...Defendant-Petitioner
Versus
M/s Tulison Industrial (Machines) Pvt.
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bipin Lal Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri G.P. Srivastava
Sri M.M. Khan
Sri M.C. Tiwari
Sri V.P. Mathur
Sri S.A. Imam

Code of Civil Procedure-Order 14 Rule-2
(2)-issue of Resjudicata be decided first
as preliminary issue-reason disclosed by
Trail Court for deciding this issue-heldmisconceived and erroneous.

Held: Para 26

In my opinion, in given facts and
circumstances of the case, the issue of
res-judicata was liable to be decided as
preliminary issue first by postponing the
settlement of other issues involved in
the said suit. It is immaterial that while