S P. Goyal, J. - (1.) Appellant Joginder Singh, an employee of Sangrur Central Cooperative Consumers Stores, Limited, Sangrur, was dismissed from service vide order dated Nov. 25/26, 1970. He filed this suit for a declaration that the said order was without jurisdiction and void and for the recovery of Rs. 7,000 as arrears of pay together with interest at the rate of six per cent. The suit was contested by the respondent but during the trial its defence was struck off for non compliance with the order to answer certain interrogatories and the suit decreed. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment dated Oct. 16, 1969 reversed the order of striking of the defence, fallowed the appeal and remanded the case for fresh trial. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has come up in this second appeal.
(2.) The legality of the remand order has been challenged on two grounds, Lamely, that an appeal against the order striking off the defence having been tiled and dismissed, the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to reopen the validity of that order in the appeal filed against the decree and that the said order has been reversed under misapprehension of facts caused by the misreading of the record. Both these contentions, however, have no substance.
(3.) It is not disputed that an appeal was filed against the order dated Oct. 8, 1975 whereby defence of the respondent was struck off. The preliminary objection was taken in that appeal by the plaintiff that as no resolution authorising the filing of the appeal was passed by the respondent which was a corporate body, the same was not maintainable. This objection was sustained but while dismissing the appeal it was also observed that even otherwise no fault could be found with the said order on merits. According to the learned counsel as the appeal had been dismissed on merits as well, the legality of the said order could not be challenged again in the appeal filed against the decree The argument is, however, wholly fallacious. As the appeal had been filed without a proper authority, no appeal in the eye of law would be deemed to nave been hied on behalf of the respondent. Moreover, in the absence of a validly constituted appeal, the decision by the Appellate Authority on merits, would be of no consequence, as held in Mohammaa Qamar Shah Man Vs. Mohammaa Salamat Ali Khan, A.I.R. 1930 All. 112. Similarly in The Municipal Committee, Ludhiana Vs. Surinder Kumar 1970 Curr. Law Journal, 631 , it was held that when the appeal is by an unauthorised person, the same was liable to be rejected under Order 41, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, which necessarily means that any decision made on merits in such appeal would have no binding effect The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, without any merit.;