- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant-applicant under Or. XLIII R. 1(r) of C.P.C. against the order dated 15.10.97, passed by the A.D.J. No. 4, Jaipur City,Jaipur, in Misc. Application No.50/93, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the application of the appellant-applicant filed under Or. XXXIX Rule 2(A) of C.P.C. (2)THE short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant original plaintiff had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants with regard to his transfer order and other reliefs. THE appellant had also filed an application under Or. XXXIX R. 1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from transferring the appellant-plaintiff, who was working on the post of Chief Time Keeper at Kota to Hindon pursuant to the said transfer order. THE said T.I. Application was dismissed by the Trial Court, against which the appellant had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. THE Appellate Court had allowed the said appeal, against which the respondents had preferred the Revision Petition being No. 1107/93, before this Court. In the said Revision Petition, this Court passed the following order on 13.9.1994:- THE petitioner Corporation transferred the respondent from Kota to Hindon and the respondent filed a civil suit to challenge that transfer order. He also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction for stay of transfer order, which was dismissed by the trial court. But the injunction was granted by the first Appellate Court. This revision petition is filed against that order by the Corporation.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for plaintiff-respondent states that the Corporation itself has cancelled the transfer order, vide its order dated 22.2.94. With the result the suit and the revision petition have become infructuous, so far as the transfer matter is concerned. LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff-respondent says that some other relief have also been claimed in the suit, so the suit will go on with regard to other reliefs. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for respondent the revision petition is dismissed as infructuous. The relief of cancellation of transfer made in the suit also became infructuous and the suit will not be decided by the trial court on the matter of transfer. (3) Subsequently, it appears that the respondents did not allow the appellant to discharge his duties as Chief Time Keeper and was asked to work as Booking Clerk at Kota. The appellant, therefore, moved an application under Or. XXXIX Rule 2(A) of C.P.C. before the Trial Court. The Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 15.10.1997 rejected the said application, against which the present appeal has been filed. At the out-set, it is required to be stated that though the impugned order is dated 15.10.97, the appeal has remained pending at admission stage for so many years and the appellant is working as a Booking Clerk at Kota, at present. Be that as it may, so far as the facts of the case are concerned, it is not disputed that the respondents had withdrawn the transfer order in question by its order dated 22 Feb. 1994, during the pendency of the Revision Petition No.1107/1993.The said Revision Petition, therefore, was dismissed by the High Court by observing that the same had become infructuous and that the relief of cancellation of transfer made in the suit also had become infructuous and that the suit will not be decided by the Trial Court on the matter of transfer. Under the circumstances the very prayer of the appellant-plaintiff with regard to the transfer did not survive in view of the subsequent order passed by the respondents on 22.2.1994 and in view of the order passed by this Court in the Revision Petition. It was sought to be submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents could not have put the appellant on the post of Booking Clerk and should have allowed him to work as the Chief Time Keeper in view of the order passed by the First Appellate Court and the Revisional Court. There is no substance in the said submission of learned counsel for the appellant in as much as there is no order passed either by the First Appellate Court or the High Court to the effect that the appellant should not be posted on the post of Booking Clerk and should be continued only on the post of Chief Time Keeper. There being no breach of injunction committed by the respondents, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the appellant filed under Or. XXXIX Rule 2(A) of C.P.C. There being no illegality or infirmity in the said order passed by the trial Court, the present appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.;