LODHA, J.—The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by Shri Chander Singh, an Advocate of Bhilwara for Rs. 2000 on account of dama-ges for wrongful termination of his appointment as a Public Prosecutor on 15-5-1956 before the completion of the term of three years commencing from 1-1-1954 to 31-12-1956 for which he had been appointed. His case is that the defendant No. 2 Shri Purshottam Lal Sukhwal, who was the Collector and District Magistrate, Bhilwara was displeased with him and was favourably disposed to wards Shri Dalpat Singh, Advocate, also practising at Bhilwara and wanted to appoint Shri Dalpat Singh as Public Prosecutor in place of the plaintiff. It is alleged that Shri Sukhwal managed to get the plaintiffs appointment terminated by the Law Department, Government of Rajasthan and in pursuance of the orders issued by the latter, Shri Sukhwal directed the plaintiff to hand over the charge of his office as a Public Prosecutor to Shri Dalpat Singh with effect from 11-5-1956. The plaintiffs allegation is that Shri Sukhwal had managed to get his appointment as Public Prosecutor terminated before the expiry of his term on account of malice and ill will he bore towards the plaintiff He, therefore, filed the present suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 2000.

2. The suit was resisted both by the State of Rajasthan as well as Shri Sukhwal who filed separate written statements. The trial court namely the Civil Judge, Bhilwara decreed the plaintiffs suit for Rs. 550 only. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court both the defendants as well as the plaintiff filed appeals in the Court of the District Judge, Bhilwara. Both the appeals were dismissed by the learned District Judge by his judgment dated 11-8-1964. The plaintiff has not filed any appeal to this Court as he felt content with the decree for Rs. 550 granted by the trial court and upheld by the learned Distt Judge, Bhilwara. But the State of Rajasthan and Shri Sukhwal have filed this second appeal.

3. Two preliminary objections have been raised by Mr. Prakash Chander on behalf of the respondent plaintiff Chander Singh. In the first place it has been argued that no appeal shall be deemed to have been filed on behalf of Shri Sukhwal even though he has been joined in the memo of appeal as appellant No 2, because Shri Murlimanohar Vyas, the then Government Advocate, who filed this appeal on behalf of the State of Rajasthan had not been engaged to present and prosecute this appeal on behalf of Shri Sukhwal. He has further argued that since no decree has been passed against the State of Rajasthan by the court below the State is also not entitled to maintain this appeal, and, therefore, the whole appeal deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.

4. The other preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel is that so far as Shri Sukhwal is concerned, against whom alone the trial court had decreed the suit, his appeal before the learned District Judge had been dismissed by the order dated 21-1 1964 by which the learned District Judge had held that the appeal filed before him could not be treated as one on behalf of Shri Sukhwal. In other words it is urged that the order of the learned District Judge, Bhilwara dated 21-1-1964 amounted to an order of dismissal of the appeal of Shri Sukhwal and consequently that order came within definition of the term decree as defined in the Code of C.P.C., and no appeal having been filed from the order of the District Judge dated 21-1-l964 the present appeal preferred from the judgment of the District Judge dated 11-9-1954 whereby the appeal filed by the State and as also the appeal filed by the plaintiff were dismissed is not maintainable, inasmuch as no decree has been passed against the State of Rajasthan and so far as Shri Sukhwal is concerned the order of dismissal of his appeal passed on 21-1-1964 by the District Judge had become final.

5. So far as the first preliminary objection is concerned i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document