JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. The appellant has filed the instant Regular Second Appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 15.04.1994, passed by learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Ferozepur, whereby a suit for declaration filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed as well as judgment and decree dated 23.07.1996, passed by learned District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby an appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 15.04.1994, has also been dismissed. Parties to the lis are being referred to as per their original position before the Trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff was working as a Field Officer in the Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Markfed’). While he was in service, he was placed under suspension, vide order dated 07.07.1980, and after issuance of a charge-sheet and holding of a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 21.01.1982. The said order of dismissal was assailed by the plaintiff by filing a suit before the Civil Court at Chandigarh which was decreed, vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1985, and the first appeal preferred by the Markfed was dismissed by the First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 05.06.1987. Thereafter, the Regular Second Appeal filed by the Markfed against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below was also dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 02.02.1990. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed an execution petition dated 19.04.1988 for implementation of the decree dated 30.11.1985. Upon appearance of the official of the department before the Executing Court, in the month of April 1986, it was stated that the petitioner had already been dismissed from service in an another departmental inquiry, vide order dated 07.09.1984. Written objections to the execution petition were filed by the defendants on 16.07.1988. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 04.05.1991 impugning the order dated 07.09.1984, whereby he was dismissed from service.

3. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed their reply and contested the suit of the plaintiff. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the impugned order dated 07.09.1984 is illegal, against service rules, null and void ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD

4. Whether the Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPD

5. Relief.

4. Both the parties were given due opportunities for leading their respective evidence and learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on merits as well as on the question of limitation and it has been held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred. The finding recorded by learned Trial Court on issue No.3 with regard to the limitation has been dealt with in the following manner :-

“Issue No.3

On this issue the Ld counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff came to know about the impugned order in the execution proceedings filed by him against the defendants at Chandigarh in the year 1988. He further argued that no such impugned order was conveyed to the plaintiff. The present suit has been filed within the limitation i.e. from the date of knowledge about the impugned order. On the other hand the Ld. counsel for the defendants has argued that suit of the plaintiff is time barred as the impugned order was passed on 7.9.84 whereas the present suit was filed on 4.5.91 i.e. after 7 years. Limitation to file the suit for declaration is of 3 years. So, the present suit is time barred. The contention of the Ld counsel for the plaintiff that no impugned order of dated 7.9.1984 was conveyed to him is not tenable. Because, defendants have only proved the service of notice of the impugned order upon the plaintiff by producing the evidence of DW2 Vinod