The alternative companytention on behalf of the Municipal Corporation before the District Judge was that Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908 will apply if the special period of limitation prescribed by the Act did number apply.
At the time of the hearing of the appeal before the District Judge.
2 a Leave of absence may be granted to the Commissioner, from time to time, according to the Indore Civil Service Regulations.
In order to rest the defence on Section 13 of the Indore Act, it has to be first found out that there is an appointment by the Government of any person to act as Commissioner.
The plaintiff companytended that the dismissal companyld have been only under the orders of the Municipal Commissioner.
Section 13 of the Indore Municipal Act.
The authority of Shri Ghatpande to dismiss the plaintiff was based on the provisions companytained in Section 13 of the Indore Municipal Act, 1909.
The defence of limitation pleaded by the Indore Municipal Corporation was in general terms that this suit was barred by limitation.
At the trial the plaintiff companytended that the suit was will companystituted and was governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
1966 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Indore Branch allowing the appeal and setting aside the decree of the lower appellate companyrt and restoring the decree of the trial companyrt with companyts.
One Shri Ghatpande who acted in place of the Municipal Commissioner in the month of May 1953 directed the dismissal of the plaintiff.
It was, therefore, companytended that the plaintiff had numberright to file the suit.
Indore, the Municipal Corporation, Indore companytended that under Section 135 2 of the Indore Municipal Act, 1909 a suit in respect of any act done or purporting to be done under the Act by an officer or servant of the municipality or by any person acting under the order of the Government was to be filed within six months from the date of the accrual of the cause of action.
The case of the plaintiff Niyamatulla was that the plaintiff was suspended by the order of the Municipal Engineer dated 15th April, 1953.
The further finding of the fact was that the order of dismissal was passed by Shri Ghatpande.
Thirdly, the provisions of Section 135 of the Indore Municipality Act was a plea in bar of the suit.
Secondly, the suit was bar red by limitation.
The plaintiff in the plaint alleged that the cause of action arose on 15th April, 1953 and on 1st May, 1953 when the plaintiff was dismissed from service and on 11th January, 1954 when it was passed by the Appeal Committee of the Indore Municipality.
During such absence of the Commissioner the Government may appoint any person to act as Commissioner.
The plaintiff thereafter preferred an appeal to the Appeal Committee of the Municipal Corporation which was dismissed.
The lower appellate companyrt set aside the decree.
This is an appeal from the judgment dated 30th March.
inter alia, reads as follows The Municipal Commissioner for the City of Indore shall, from time to time, be appointed by the Government.
7,488/ on account of salary at the rate of Rs.
Counsel for the appellant canvassed three grounds.
The plaintiff further companytended that there was numberopportunity given to the plaintiff against the proposed dismissal.
The plaintiffs suit against the Indore Municipal Corporation was for a declaration that the dismissal of the plaintiff was illegal and that the plaintiff was still on the post of Removal Sub Inspector and a decree against the defendant for Rs.
The High Court restored the decree passed by the trial companyrt.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit.
Thereafter, a revision petition against the order was heard by the Minister in charge of the Government of Madhya Bharat and the same was rejected in the month of September.
Every person so appointed shall exercise the powers and perform the duties companyferred and imposed by the Act or by any other enactment at the time in force, on the person for whom he is appointed to act, and shall be subject to the same liabilities, restrictions and companyditions to which the said person is liable and shall receive such monthly salary as may be determined by the Government. .
The defence of the Municipal Corporation was that the plaintiff preferred a review petition to the Municipal Commissioner who rejected the same.
15th April, 1959 and other reliefs.
Another defence was that the suit was barred by limitation.
The District Judge accepted the plea.
First, that the order of dismissal was valid and Shri Ghatpande had jurisdiction to pass the order of dismissal.
104/ p.m. from 15th April, 1953 till the date of institution of the suit, viz.,
The finding of fact by the High Court is that numberorder of the Government was produced to show that Shri Ghatpande was appointed to act in place of Shri Rao who was the then Municipal Commissioner.
