Relief of damages and relief of declaration distinct and separate.

Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Shanmukham J., in Appeal No. 23 of 1979. That Appeal, in its turn, was directed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 619 of 1970, on the file or the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The Original respondent in this Letters Patent Appeal died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The Original respondent was the plaintiff in the suit. The appellant herein was the defendant in the suit. We propose to refer to the parties as per their array in the suit. The plaintiff wanted a declaration that the order of dismissal passed against him from the service of the defendant on 5.6.1967 is void and of no effect and for consequential direction that the plaintiff should be paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 as damages. In view of the limited scope of the points that have come up for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal, we do not propose to traverse upon the entire gamut of facts of the case. On the pleadings of the parties, the first Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the charge memo was issued on the report of the Deputy Inspector of Schools?

(2) Whether the enquiry held by the defendant was against the principles of natural justice and is vitiated as alleged in Para. 16 of the plaint?

(3) Whether the order of dismissal of the plaintiff dated 5.6.1967 is void, illegal and unenforceable as stated in Para. 24 of the plaint?

(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable without any consequential prayer?

(5) Whether the plaintiff cannot file this suit as Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act is a bar?

(6) To what relief?

On Issue No. l, the first Court held that the charge memorandum was issued on the report of the Deputy Inspector of Schools. On issue No. 2, the First Court's finding is to the effect that the enquiry held by the defendant was not against the principles of natural justice. As a result of this finding on issue No. 2, the first Court held on issue No. 3, that the dismissal of the plaintiff is not void. The First Court held issue No. 4 against the defendant. Issue No. 5 was found in favour of the plaintiff. The First Court dismissed the suit with costs in view of its findings on. issue Nos. 1 to 3. The plaintiff appealed in Appeal No. 23 of 1979 to this Court, and that came to be dealt with by Shanmukham, J. Before the learned single Judge, the contention with regard to limitation was pressed forth by the defendant with reference to the claim for damages, put forward by the plaintiff. The learned single Judge, opining that the claim for damages is not the principal relief and it is only a consequential relief and hence the question of limitation would not come into play, held that the relief for damages was not barred by time. The learned single Judge held, on his own assessment of the factual materials placed in the case, that there had been a violation of the principles of natural justice. As a result, the learned single Judge allowed the Appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree of the first Court, and decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs throughout.

2. As already noted, the plaintiff, original respondent in the Letters Patent Appeal, died pending the Letters Patent Appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record. In this Letters Patent Appeal, Mr. Tarulraj, learned Counsel for the defendant, would submit that so far as the relief of declaration, asked for by the plaintiff, is concerned, the plaintiff having died pending the Letters Patent Appeal, if at all we are inclined to consider the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge and as well as those of First Court that could be done only with reference to the relief of damages and the relief of declaration does not survive in favour of the legal representatives of the plaintiff who is no more. Learned Counsel for the defendant would say that in view of this subsequent event, it would be unnec