Arvind Kumar, J. - (1.) WITHOUT going into the question of delay in filing the appeal, the main appeal is itself heard on merits.
(2.) STATE of Haryana in this appeal has challenged judgment and decree dated 25.3.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, allowing the appeal of the plaintiff -respondent and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 10.6.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The dispute giving rise to this appeal is that plaintiff respondent , Bansidhar, did not take any steps to serve the notices issued by the Court of Shri M.K. Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts at Delhi, in case FIR No. 750/99 under Section 394/34 IPC P.S. Badli, to ASI Pardeep Singh, ASI Mahabir Singh and Head Constable Siri Om, though the same were received by him when he was posted as MHC of Police Station Sadar Dadri. It is the case of the State that departmental enquiry was conducted wherein the respondent was found guilty and a punishment of stoppage of one future annual increment with cumulative effect was inflicted upon him. The Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, who had inflicted the said punishment had held that the plea taken by the delinquent plaintiff -respondent that notices were not brought to his knowledge did not carry any force when he being the MHC was fully responsible to deal with the entire Dak papers. The trial Court concluded that the view taken by Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, on the basis of evidence brought on record was correct and accordingly, dismissed the suit. However, the lower appellate Court in appeal reversed that finding and held that Constable Paramvir who had brought the notices from S.P. Office, Bhiwani, had handed over all Dak papers to one Constable Dharam Pal who was posted as A/C in the concerned police station and he did not bring those notices to the knowledge of the plaintiff -respondent. The lower appellate Court on reappreciation of the statement given by Constable Paramvir Singh who appeared as PW -7 found that the Dak received from SP Bhiwani was handed over to Constable Dharampal under the orders of the SHO and not by the MHC, the plaintiff -respondent. Even in the enquiry conducted, it was deposed by PW -7 Paramvir Singh while appearing as defence witness that the notices were handed over to Constable Dharampal. On the basis of these findings, the lower appellate Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff -respondent. As discussed above, the lower appellate Court after examining the enquiry report as well as the evidence on which the enquiry report was based besides the evidence brought before the trial Court, has held that the notices in question were never handed over to the plaintiff respondent . Therefore, the finding in the enquiry holding the plaintiff respondent guilty was totally wrong. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal.
(3.) NO other point has been urged.;