High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Rajinder Sharma v. State of Haryana & Anr - RSA-1146-2003  RD-P&H 813 (16 February 2006)
R.S.A. No. 1146 of 2003
Date of Decision: January 31, 2006
State of Haryana and another
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. D.S. Nalwa, DAG Haryana,
for the respondents.
VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
The suit filed by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Even on merits the claim of the plaintiff was rejected.
The appeal filed by the plaintiff also failed before the learned first Appellate Court.
From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the services of the plaintiff had been regularised w.e.f. April 1, 1993, vide order dated March 4, 1994.
He filed the present suit on May 6, 1997. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was apparently barred by limitation.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.
R.S.A. No. 1146 of 2003 
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
January 31, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.