Gobardhan Sahai Vs. Mahabir Singh and ors. - Court Judgment
|Judge||Karamat Husain and ;Tudball, JJ.|
|Respondent||Mahabir Singh and ors.|
.....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..........a valid decree was not represented at the instance of the appellant in that case is not, in our opinion, sufficient to render the decree of this court void and incapable of execution, and as that decree is not a void decree, the executing court has no power to go behind it. the result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.
1. An application by the decree-holders was put in for the execution of their decree objection was taken by the judgment-debtor that there was no valid decree which could be executed against him. The facts as shown by the objection of the judgment-debtor are the following:--The decree-holders obtained a decree from the lower appellate court against the present appellant and other judgment-debtors. The latter preferred a second appeal to this Court. While the appeal was pending, the guardian ad litem of Sita Ram, one of the respondents, died. No application was made by the judgment-debtor, appellant in that case, to have another guardian ad litem appointed to represent the minor decree-holder Sita Ram. This Court dismissed the appeal of the judgment-debtor in that case and affirmed the decree of the lower appellate court. The present appellant was one of the original judgment-debtors and a pro forma respondent in that appeal. Under these circumstances the mere fact that one of the respondents in whose favour there was a valid decree was not represented at the instance of the appellant in that case is not, in our opinion, sufficient to render the decree of this Court void and incapable of execution, and as that decree is not a void decree, the executing court has no power to go behind it. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.