- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Impugned herein is the order dated 11th September, 2000 passed by special Judge, Moradabad whereby application 3 C was allowed and decree was also amended by which plaintiff appellant was made liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 16% from the date of restoration of Lecturer's grade. The correction was effected accordingly in the decree prepared on 14- 1-1992.
(2.) THE matrix of necessary facts is that plaintiff respondent Munna Lal Agarwal instituted a suit for the relief of declaration that the order dated 6-4-1981 passed by defendant No. 2 whereby earlier order dated 22-1-1980 was rescinded, was quite unauthorized, illegal inoperative and void attended with further relief for a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8121. 69 P with pendente lite and future interest @ Rs. 60 per month. THE other allied reliefs were also claimed. In the ultimate analysis, the trial Court substantially dismissed the suit in so far as it related to the relief for declaration but at the same time decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 8121. 69 P in addition to the decree for recovery of Rs. 8121. 69 P as difference of pay with pendente lite and future interest till restoration of lecturer's grade, the trial Court subsequently amended the decree by means of the impugned order pursuant to an application made under Section 151 and 152 C. P. C. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also been taken through the materials on record including the impugned order. The learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite parties put forth two arguments centring round maintainability of the writ petition. The substance of the argument is that the matter arising out of suit for declaration which was decreed by the appellate Court and in consideration of the application under Section 151 and 152 C. P. C. the only decree passed by the appellate Court was modified to certain extent at the instance of the plaintiff and by this reckoning, the writ petition is not maintainable attended with further submission that any party aggrieved, had a remedy under the C. P. C. and extra-ordinary remedy under Article 226 cannot be invoked in a case arising out of civil suit. The learned Counsel next submitted that Committee of management did not contest the suit nor filed any written statement at any stage and, therefore, it cannot maintain writ petition by invoking the procedure of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THE matter was heard earlier consequent upon the prayer made by learned Counsel for the petitioner vide order dated 21-12-2006. On the aforesaid date the matter was adjourned fixing it for further hearing on 9-1-2007. On 9-1-2007, the case was again fixed on petitioner's request on 10-1-2007. It brooks no dispute that against any decree passed by lower appellate Court, second appeal lies under Section 100 C. P. C. Section 100-A and Section 102 envisage one exception which is to the effect that no second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees. Section 102 being germane to the point raised is being quoted below. "102. No second appeal in certain cases.-No second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees. " Similarly an exception is carved out in Section 100-A which is to the effect that were any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such Single Judge. The Section 100-A of the C. P. C. being also relevant is quoted below : "no further appeal in certain cases.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such Single Judge. " The matter at issue does not emanate from a suit the subject matter of which is recovery of money not exceeding Rs. 25000/ -. Rather, it would appear, it is a suit for the relief of declaration and for recovery of certain amount and by this reckoning, any party aggrieved by the decree passed by the lower appellate Court has a remedy by way of second appeal under the C. P. C. provided of course any substantial question of law so warrants.;