B.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been Tiled for quashing the adverse remarks/strictures against the petitioner by the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar on 30.11.1995 contained in Annexure. 7 to this petition.
(2.) THE factual gamut of the case, as revealed by the record is that the services of the petitioner, a teacher in English language, were transferred from Senior Higher Secondary School, Raisinghnagar to Dabri on 17.6.1995, and in pursuance of said order he stood relieved on 1.7.1995. Petitioner filed suit No. 37/1995 before the Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate Raisinghnagar for injunction against the transfer order. In that suit, the interim relief staying the operation of the transfer order was granted on 13.9.1995. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the defendant therein preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 32/1995 before the learned Additional District Judge. Raisinghnagar (respondent No. 2). In the said appeal, the grounds taken by the appellant -defendant revealed that the Civil Court did not possess jurisdiction to entertain a suit against the transfer order and, thus, the order dated 13.9.1995 was without jurisdiction. The present petitioner sought time to file reply in the said appeal and it stood adjourned for 30.11.1995. In the meanwhile petitioner moved an application before the learned Civil Judge, Raisingnnagar to withdraw his suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, if need be arisen, and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.11.1995. The appeal came for hearing on 30.11.1995 before the appellate Court (respondent No. 2) wherein the appellate Court passed a detailed order which is contained in Annexure 6. By the said order after taking note of the fact that the suit had already been dismissed as withdrawn the respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal and further held that as the matter was out -side the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (respondent No. 3), the order dated 13.9.1995 was bad and as a consequence the same was quashed. The matter could have ended here but respondent No. 2 delivered a full -fledged judgment (Annexure. 7) on merit regarding the maintainability of the suit before the respondent No. 3. In absence of the petitioner and without asking any explanation from respondent No. 3. Appellate Court after dealing with the case on merit, came to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 3 to entertain the said suit or pass any interim order therein. The Appellate Court, also, took a note of the suit filed by the petitioner earlier in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar and further observed that on earlier dale the present petitioner had sought time to file reply in the appeal, but he did not file the reply in the appeal rather withdrew the suit pending before the respondent No. 3 passed strictures against the petitioner as well as the learned Civil Judge, respondent No. 3 to the effect that they were in collusion and the respondent No. 3 issued the temporary injunction without having jurisdiction and when the petitioner realised that he would not be able to succeed in appeal, he withdrew his suit pending before the respondent No. 3 on 29.11.1995 in a very dramatic way and that was not a stage for the learned Civil Judge to pass the order of dismissal as withdrawn. It was further observed that the Civil Judge was competent to permit the withdrawal of the suit but the withdrawal of the original suit was contrary to law. Thus, the order passed by the respondent No. 3 was stinking and smelling collusion between the petitioner and the Trial Judge and when the appeal was pending before the appellate Court, the suit could not have been permitted to be withdrawn and, thus, the interim order dated 13.9.1995 was liable to be quashed and he further passed the order that because of the withdrawal of the main suit, the interim order dated 13.9.1995 had become meaningless. In spite of it, the appeal was accepted and the interim order dated 13.9.1995 was quashed.
(3.) THE petitioner has preferred this petition only for quashing the adverse remarks made against him.;