High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Surinder Pal Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors - RSA-5895-2003  RD-P&H 725 (14 February 2006)
Case No. : R.S.A.No.5895 of 2003
Date of Decision : January 20, 2006.
Surinder Pal Singh .... Appellant
State of Haryana & others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.
* * *
Present : None for the appellant.
There is a written request for adjournment.
The matter pertains to the year 2003.
The record of the case shows that right from the date of filing the present appeal in the year 2003, repeated requests for adjournment have been made by the learned counsel for the appellant. In these circumstances, there is no justification to allow the request of the learned counsel. Request is, accordingly, declined.
The plaintiff having concurrently lost before both the courts below, has approached this court through the present Regular Second Appeal.
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming that he was entitled to the benefits of service rendered by him in PWD (B&R) from Januray 18, 1980 to July 27, 1988. He also claimed all the consequential R.S.A.No.5895 of 2003 : 2 :
The suit was dismissed by the learned trial court. The learned first appellate court re-appraised the evidence and came to the similar conclusion. His appeal was also dismissed.
I have gone through the record of the case but find no material to hold that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
January 20, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.