- (1.) THERE is delay of 493 days in filing the intra court appeal.
(2.) FOR the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, duly supported by affidavit, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. Application No.8178/2011 is disposed of. Heard on the question of admission. The intra court appeal has been preferred as against order dated 9.9.2009 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.10954/2009. Review petition was also filed, same has been dismissed vide order dated 28.1.2011. Aggrieved thereby, the intra court appeal has been preferred in the year 2011. Petitioner filed writ application before the Single Bench praying for the relief with respect to his promotion on the post of Assistant Manager with effect from the date his juniors were promoted; other consequential benefits were also sought by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that in the year 1983, petitioner has filed civil suit No.726/1983 in the court of Additional Munsif, Class I, No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur praying for the same relief, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.10.1987. The decision has been upheld by the Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dated 17.1.1996 and also in second appeal No.400/1997 by Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.8.2006. On merits, the petitioner lost in the civil suit for similar relief, is not in dispute. Thereafter, the petitioner has claimed that he obtained certain information under the Right to Information Act, and then filed the writ application before the Single Bench in the year 2009 i.e.after more than three years of dismissal of the second appeal by this Court and ten years of his retirement. The Single Bench has dismissed the writ application vide order dated 9.9.2009; review application was also dismissed subsequently. Hence, the intra court appeal has been preferred.
(3.) MR.P.S.Tomar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellant has a very good case on merits. He has obtained certain information under the Right to Information Act, which was not furnished to him earlier; as such, fresh petition ought to have been entertained. He has placed reliance on decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs.Deo Narain and Ors., AIR 2009 SC (Supp.) 71 and State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Das, AIR 2009 SC 3051 as to merits of the case. Mr.Virendra Lodha, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Ankit Jain on behalf of the respondents has supported the order passed by Single Bench and submitted that the fresh petition was not maintainable due to dismissal of the civil suit which has been affirmed by this Court in the second appeal also. The writ petition has been filed belatedly. Hence, no case for interference is made out. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that once the appellant has lost in the civil suit, which decision has been upheld by this Court in the second appeal, it was not open for him to have filed writ petition before this Court. The decisions which have been relied upon by counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant are of no avail; merits cannot be looked into. After dismissal of the civil suit, writ petition filed in the year 2009 was rightly dismissed by the Single Bench. We find no ground to make interference. ;