S.K.JAIN, J. - (1.) JANAK Raj-respondent herein was working as Ware Housing Manager in the Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation, Punjab, Chandigarh in 1973 and was posted at Amritsar. In 1977, he was potted at Jaintipur (Amritsar ). A theft of 5675 empty gunny bags was committed in godown No. 2 of that office. A First Information Report was lodged by the plaintiff at the instance of the District Manager. An enquiry was. held against the plaintiff. He was held guilty and dismissed from service vide order dated 19. 5. 1981. His appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation was dismissed but in civil writ petition, the order of the appellate authority was quashed on 5. 3. 1982 by this Court. When the Corporation did not give effect to the said judgment of this Court, the plaintiff served a notice under Section 80 of the CM Procedure Code upon the Corporation and thus, filed civil suit No. 181 of 1983 on 12. 8. 1983/5. 9. 1985 for a decree of declaration that the order dated 19. 5. 1981 of the Managing Director of Punjab State Ware housing Corporation, Chandigarh, dismissing him form the service was unconstitutional, illegal and void and that he continues to be in service and entitle to all benefits. This suit was fifed by the plaintiff against the State of Punjab through the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, the Chairman, Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation, Punjab Chandigarh, and the Managing Director, Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation, Chandigarh. Issues were struck and the parties led evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Sub Judge I Class, Amritsar, vide his judgment and decree dated 7. 6. 1988 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, one of the respondent, namely, the Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation preferred civil appeal No. 115 of 1988 on 27. 7. 1988 without impleading the State of Punjab and the Managing Director of the Corporation either appellants or respondents. The said appeal was heard and dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide his judgment and decree dated 17. 1. 1992. It is that judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court which has been challenged by the defendant-appellant in the this regular second appeal and which requires my examination of its sustainability.
(2.) I have seen the pleadings of the parties in the suit, the evidence led by the parties and the judgments of both the courts below. The operative part of the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court reads as under : "at the very outset the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent raised preliminary objection that in this case the decree was passed against three defendants whereas the present appeal has been filed only by defendant No. 3. The defendants No. 1 and 2 have neither filed any appeal nor have been added as respondents in this appeal. So, the decree against the remaining defendants has become final and for want of impleading them as parties in this appeal, the appeal is not competent because if appeal is allowed of the present appellant, there would be two inconsistent decree. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents finds support from the authority of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court cited as AIR 1978 N. O. C. 213 in Invest Import v. Watkin Mayur & Co. Certainly in the instant case defendants No. 1 and 2 have not been impleaded either as appellants or as respondents so, qua them the decree of the learned tower court has become final. The present appeal is incompetent as two inconsistent decrees can not be passed. Relying upon the said authority I hold that the appeal is incompetent as inconsistent decrees can not be passed. Hence, on this preliminary objection the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the above cited judgment.;