[2025:RJ-JP:11359]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 283/1998 Kailash Goyal S/o Shri Shivbux Goyal, aged about 42 years, resident of New Cloth Market, Chittorgarh At Present Residing At B-229, Alkapuri, Ratlam M.P.

----Appellant/plaintiff Versus

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through General Manager-Cum-Managing Director

2. Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C., Udaipur

3. Additional Chief Manager, R.S.R.T.C., Udaipur

4. Additional General Manager Personnel, R.S.R.T.C., Udaipur

5. Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur ----Respondents/defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.L. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.K. Singhi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ran Singh, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

11/03/2025

1. Instant Civil Second Appeal is preferred by appellant-plaintiff aggrieved from judgment dated 05.03.1998 in civil regular appeal No. 37/1989 passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby judgment and decree dated 12.09.1989 in civil suit No. 122-A/1989 passed by learned Additional Munsif Magistrate No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur for declaratory relief was set aside and civil suit was dismissed.

2. Learned Counsel for appellant while relying upon judgment in cases of Ram Ratan Sharma Vs. RSRTC and Ors. (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 245/1996, Date of Judgment, 01.03.1997), Mali Ram Banjara Vs. RSRTC, MANU/RH/2198/2013, RSRTC and Ors. Vs. Omprakash Sharma (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 278/2003, Shyam Singh Vs. RSRTC and Ors. (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 291/1997), Sattar Mohammad Vs, RSRTC and Ors. (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 419/1998) has submitted that after dismissal of revision petition by the Chairman of defendant- RSRTC, the suit was filed within a period of 3 years and learned Trial Court after considering the statement of both the parties has decided this issue No. 5 in favor of appellant-plaintiff. He also referred the order dated 04.12.1984 and submitted that the order was not supplied by the Corporation, and the Court should not insist to provide a copy of order dated 04.12.1984. He further referred the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court and submitted that the Chairman has full authority and power to review decision of Appellate Authority subordinate to him. He further submitted that the final order in the case was passed on 04.12.1984 and there is no specific denial by defendants, therefore, the Court may consider the institution of civil suit within the time limit prescribed for filing of civil suit. He also referred the standing order and submitted that the Chairman has full authority and review or revision can be filed before him but in the instant case, a copy of order passed by the Chairman on 04.12.1984 was not made available to him, and the appellant- plaintiff has not filed same before the Trial Court. At last, he submitted that the Chairman of the Corporation has unlimited power to review the order passed by any authority subordinate to him.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents and he submitted that as per standing orders an employee can file appeal before next higher authority within a period of 30 days. He further submits that nowhere it has provided that a review or a revision against the order of Appellate Authority can be filed before the Chairman of Corporation. He also referred the findings recorded by the Trial Court and submitted that the findings are contrary to the pleadings and evidence of the parties, and appellate Court has rightly set aside the findings. He also submitted that without a specific pleading, the issue of limitation can be raised by the defendant, even at appellate stage. He specifically referred judgment in case of Narne Rama Murthy vs Ravula Somasundaram & Ors (2005) 6 SCC 614 and submitted that when a suit is barred by limitation then the Court ought to have decided the quest