The Respondent, however, did number vacate the quarters as directed, whereupon the Appellant filed A. No.1871 of 2009 in the Second Appeal No.134 of 2005 pending before the High Court, for a direction upon the Respondent to vacate the quarters occupied by him.
It was, therefore, settled upto this Court that the Appellant herein was a public officer and that numberice under Section 80 was required to be given to him before the suit was filed by the Respondent.
Holding the same number to be binding on the Respondent Plaintiff, the Munsif declared that the Respondent would be deemed to be in companytinuous service in the CMPF Organisation under the Appellant, together with all benefits and privileges.
The XIIIth Additional District Judge, Dhanbad, accordingly, set aside the order of the learned Munsif, Second Court, Dhanbad, in Title Suit No.102 of 1990 by its judgment and order dated 16th February, 2005.
Challenging his removal from service, the Respondent filed Title Suit No.78 of 1979 in the Court of Munsif at Dhanbad.
The Appellant companytested the suit which was decreed in favour of the Respondent on 15th February, 2002, by the Second Munsif, Dhanbad, declaring the removal of the Respondent from service to be arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution.
On account of the above decision of this Court, on 15th February, 2002, the Respondent withdrew his Title Suit No.78 of 1979 and filed a fresh suit being Title Suit No.102 of 1990 after serving numberice upon the Appellant under Section 80 CPC.
Aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, the Respondent filed Second Appeal No.134 of 2005 before the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi.
By its order dated 7th September, 1981, the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court set aside the findings of the learned Munsif and held the suit to be maintainable.
In companynection with the forcible occupation of a Type III quarter, a departmental proceeding was companymenced against the Respondent and on 16th March, 1979, on being found guilty of the charge framed against him, the Respondent was removed from service.
On 19th February, 2010, the High Court heard the companytempt case when it was informed that the Respondent had vacated the quarters and had handed over the keys to the companycerned authorities on 17th February, 2010.
Simultaneously, the Respondent also filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Regulation 37 of the Staff Regulations, which was dismissed on 4th March, 1980.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent filed Civil Revision No.341 of 1980 R in the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court, which held that since the Appellant was number a public officer as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, numbernotice under Section 80 was required to be served upon him before the suit was filed.
On his failure to honour the undertaking given by him to vacate the suit premises, the High Court took strong exception to the violation of the undertaking given by the Respondent and initiated fresh companytempt proceedings against him and ordered the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, to get the quarters vacated and to hand over vacant possession of the same to the companypetent authority of the CMPFO, Dhanbad within 48 hours of the receipt of the order.
The Appellant, thereafter, brought the matter to this Court and in Civil Appeal No.1932 of 1982 this Court by its judgment dated 31st January, 1990, reversed the finding of the Appellate Authority upon holding that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is a public officer within the meaning of Section 2 17 of the aforesaid Code.
Meanwhile, in the suit, the learned Munsif, Dhanbad Jharkhand framed a preliminary issue in Suit No.78 of 1979 as to whether in the absence of numberice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit was maintainable?
Four years later, on 15th June, 2009, since the Respondent had number delivered vacant possession of the quarters in his possession, the Estate Officer, by his order dated 15th June, 2009, gave the Respondent 15 days time to vacate the suit premises along with other members of his family.
In the said Appeal, the Respondent herein raised the question as to whether the suit of the Respondent was bad for number joinder of the Union of India which was a necessary party in the suit?
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsif decreeing the Respondents Title Suit No.102 of 1990, the Appellant preferred Title Appeal No.29 of 2002 before the Court of XIIIth Additional District Judge, Dhanbad.
Accepting the companytention of the Appellant, the First Appellate Court held that since the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner was a public officer under the Union of India so as to attract the provisions of Order XXVII Rule 5A and Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit was bad for number joinder of the Union of India which was a necessary party.
In addition, the Estate Officer passed an order in the execution proceedings on 28th August, 2009, for eviction of the Respondent from the quarters in question.
On 24th August, 2009, the Respondent, through his companynsel, gave an undertaking to vacate the quarters by 30th November, 2009.
The Respondent was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 16th January, 1967, by the Chief Commissioner in the service of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation, hereinafter referred to as CMPFO.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
The appellant herein is the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner through the Board of Trustees, companystituted under Section 3 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, CMPF Organisation, Dhanbad.
