- (1.) THE persent first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff � appellant Chandra Prakash Parihar against the defendants Hynoup Food and Oil Industries Ltd. and its Chairman Shri Bharat Bhai Patel being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2006, by which his suit filed for recovery of Rs.68382.50 came to be decreed in his favour by the learned trial court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.514/04 � Chandra Prakash Parihar vs. Chairman, Bharat Bhai Patel and another on 15.07.2006 and the defendants were directed to pay salary, TA/DA etc. up to 30.04.1994 when his services stood terminated and he was relieved from his job of Sales Representative of the said Oil Mills. In Execution Proceedings, transferred from Rajasthan to Gujarat since the defendant Company is registered in the State of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, the said decree came to be satisfied by the consent of the plaintiff and a total sum of Rs.90,552.99 (Rs.68,382.50 towards payment of salary, TA, DA, Rs.18,661.99/- for interest, Rs.3,496/- for expenses and Rs.12.50 totalling to Rs.90,552.99) was thus paid by the defendant judgment debtor Company and the decree was thus satisfied.
(2.) THE appellant through the present first appeal has claimed that the T.A. / D.A. and the salary was not paid after 30.04.1994, though actually he worked in the said Company till August 1996. He also filed two Charts as Appendix "A" and "B" showing his claim up to August 1996; for salary up to 31.08.1996 and TA & DA up to 28.08.1994. The plaintiff, who is now about 80 years in his advance age, himself arguing his own appeal, submitted that the decree has been passed wrongly for the lesser amount. On the other hand, Mr. Dhanpat Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents � defendants, submitted that no evidence for actual work done by him beyond 30.04.1994 was led by the plaintiff before the learned trial court. As against this, the defendants adduced the documentary evidence including the order dated 25.04.1994 (Ex.C 22/3) relieving the plaintiff - appellant Chandra Prakash Parihar w.e.f. 30.04.1994 after office hours from his services. He also submitted that since the plaintiff actually did not work after 30.04.1994, there is no question of payment of salary and TA / DA after the said date 30.04.1994. He further submitted that by the consent of the plaintiff � decree holder, the entire decree along with interest and expenses was satisfied by the learned Executing Court at Ahmedabad in Execution Case No.363/2007 (203/2008) of City Civil Court, Ahmedabad on 24.09.2005 and he has produced before this Court photo copies of those payment receipts and orders of the learned Executing Court at Ahmedabad, which are taken on record. He further submitted that since there is no evidence on record for any work done by the plaintiff beyond 30.04.1994, the decree under appeal is perfectly just and does not call for any interference by this Court in the present first appeal. Having heard the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents � defendants and upon perusal of the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no evidence on record adduced by the plaintiff for establishing his working in Company beyond 30.04.1994 as against the documentary evidence led by the defendants showing that he was relieved from service on 30.04.1994 and to that extent, the decree granted in his favour has already been satisfied. Thus, the present first appeal of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the present first appeal is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below and both the parties forthwith. ;