Lohre Vs. Deo Hans and anr. - Court Judgment
|Judge||Banerji and ;Aikman, JJ.|
|Respondent||Deo Hans and anr.|
.....board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978
[act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised..........for arrears of rent for the years 1309 to 1312 fasli. the plaintiff joined as a defendant to the suit sita ram, respondent, who, he said, was his co-sharer and had refused to join in bringing the suit. the court of first instance dismissed the claim as against deo hans and decreed it against sita ram. the plaintiff acquiesced in this decree and did not appeal against that part of it which dismissed his claim against deo hans. sita ram appealed, making the plaintiff and deo hans respondents to the appeal. the lower appellate court decreed the appeal and dismissed the suit. the plaintiff has preferred this appeal, and contends that the court below ought to have made a decree in his favour against deo hans. this contention is untenable. the plaintiff having submitted to the decree of the.....
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.
1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by Lohre, appellant, against Deo Hans, respondent, for arrears of rent for the years 1309 to 1312 Fasli. The plaintiff joined as a defendant to the suit Sita Ram, respondent, who, he said, was his co-sharer and had refused to join in bringing the suit. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim as against Deo Hans and decreed it against Sita Ram. The plaintiff acquiesced in this decree and did not appeal against that part of it which dismissed his claim against Deo Hans. Sita Ram appealed, making the plaintiff and Deo Hans respondents to the appeal. The lower appellate Court decreed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal, and contends that the Court below ought to have made a decree in his favour against Deo Hans. This contention is untenable. The plaintiff having submitted to the decree of the first Court dismissing the claim against Deo Hans, and there being no appeal by the plaintiff against Deo Hans, the appellate Court could not on the appeal of Sita Ram make a decree in favour of one respondent against the other. Several rulings having been cited to us, but the case most in point is that of Farzand Ali Khan v. Bismillah Begam (1904) I.L.R. 27 All. 23. This ruling is against the appellant. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.