By the Court.—Appellant appeared in person.

2. This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “C.P.C.”) against the impugned order dated 30.5.2011, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur whereby application under Order 33 Rule 2 of C.P.C. moved by the appellant in a pending suit has been rejected.

3. While assailing the impugned order, the appellant, in person, submits that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) had rejected the application on unfounded ground. It could not have been rejected under Order 33 Rule 2 C.P.C.

4. It shall be appropriate to give brief facts, pleaded before the trial Court as borne out from the record.

5. The plaintiff-appellant claims to have established an industry in the name of M/s. Laxmi Rubber and Chemical Industries, Sitapur and registered with the Sales Tax Department controlled by the defendant No. 1 i.e. State of U.P. According to the appellant, registration was done from 6.2.1986 having registration certificate No. S.T.0053971. However, the appellant could not do the business due to alleged high handedness on the part of the Sales Tax Department. The different applications submitted by the appellant claiming exemption under Section 4A of the Sales Tax Act could not fetch favour from the Sales Tax Department. It has been stated that on account of inaction on the part of the Sales Tax Department, the appellant suffered loss of more than Rs. 69 lacs within a period of 23 years. The submission of the appellant is that the machinery of the State Government dealing with the sales tax and other related matters is highly corrupt hence they have not discharged their statutory obligation to grant exemption under Section 4A of the Sales Tax Act. It has been pleaded that due to corruption at the level of the defendant No. 1 i.e., State of U.P., the appellant could not run the business and accordingly failed to serve their children and parents. In sum and substance, the argument advanced by the appellant is that because of the rampart corruption in the state machinery, the appellant could not run the business and has suffered loss of social status, mental pain and agony.

6. The appellant further states that against the order passed by the Sales Tax Department, he filed a Writ Petition No. 3055 (M/B) of 1989, which was dismissed by this Court on 14.8.1997. According to the pleadings on record as contained in paras-12, 13 and 14 of the plaint, the dismissal of the writ petition, filed by the appellant, in this Court is incident of arbitrary exercise of power. Review petition filed against the said order too was dismissed by the High Court. It has further been stated that another writ petition, bearing No. 2255 (M/B) of 1994 was filed in this Court, which was also dismissed by the order dated 4.8.1994, against which a Review Petition No. 109 (w) of 1994 was preferred, which is allegedly pending.

7. The appellant has used derogatory words in the plaint raising allegation against the functioning of High Court and also stated that because of corruption, the writ petition was dismissed.

8. In Para-14 of the plaint, it has been stated that the appellant has suffered estimated loss of Rs. 2537 lacs. The appellant further pleaded in the plaint that he approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court where his prayer for contempt was rejected. He submits that against the order passed by this Court, he approached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court levelling serious allegation against the authorities concerned.

9. A perusal of the record shows that one Pankaj Kalra,Advocate appeared before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on behalf of the appellant Raj Kishore Vaish and Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing an order on 27.3.1995 in Contempt Petition No. 1200 of 1995, observed that the petitioner was not properly advised. Sri Pankaj Kalra had assured the Hon’ble Supreme Court to tender proper advice and record further shows that latter on, the matter was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court