RSRTC Vs. BANSHI DHAR RAIGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellants-original defendants under Order 43 Rule 1(k) of CPC challenging the order dated 6.10.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'appellate court')in Regular Civil Appeal No.70 of 2002, whereby the appellate court has dismissed the applications of the appellants for bringing legal representatives of the original respondent-plaintiff on record and also for condonation of delay filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, and also dismissed the said Appeal.

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the original plaintiff Banshi Dhar Raigar, who was the employee of the appellants-defendants had challenged his termination order dated 8.1.1987 passed by the appellants, before the trial court by filing the suit. THE trial court by the judgment and decree dated 13.9.1989 decreed the said suit in favour of the said plaintiff. Accordingly, the said plaintiff Banshi Dhar Raigar was reinstated in the service by the appellants. However, the appellants preferred an appeal before the appellate court challenging the said decree passed by the trial court. During the pendency of the said appeal, the said plaintiff Banshi Dhar Raigar expired on 16.5.1993. Subsequently, the appellants submitted the application on 29.5.1999 for bringing the heirs of the said plaintiff Banshi Dhar Raigar on record of the appeal and also made an application seeking condonation of delay which had occurred in filing the said application. THE appellate court dismissed both the applications and consequently also the appeal by the impugned order dated 6.10.2005. Being aggrieved of the said order, the present appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(k) of CPC.

(3.) IN the instant case, the appellants have failed to point out as to how the appellants would suffer enormous loss or irreparable injury if the delay was not condoned. As a matter of fact, the original-respondent Banshi Dhar Raigar has already expired as back as in the year 1993 and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the appeal before the appellate court against the respondents who are the heirs after such a long time.