- (1.) The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff that he is entitled to the same pay scale as that of his junior, was decreed.
(2.) In the second appeal, learned counsel or the appellant has raised two fold arguments. Firstly, the suit was not maintainable without serving a notice contemplated under Section 31 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). In support of the said argument, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Dr.H.S. Rikhy Vs. The New Delhi Municipal Committee AIR 1962 Supreme Court 554 and East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Limited Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority Faridabad, 2003(3) P.L.R. 842.
(3.) However, I am unable to agree with the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Issue No. 7 was framed by the learned trial Court to the effect 'whether the suit is bad for want of legal notice under Section 31 of the P.A.P.M. Act, 1961?" The said issue was not pressed or argued before the learned trial Court and, thus, the same was decided against the defendant. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant disputed the finding recorded by the trial Court before the first Appellate Court as none gets deciphered from the judgment. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant are clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case.;