However, respondent company did number participate during evidence stage and hence the trial companyrt proceeded with the suit ex parte and a decree was passed in terms of the plaint on 25.1.1991.
He succeeded in the trial companyrt where he filed the suit for a declaratory decree and also in the first appellate companyrt, but he was number suited by the High Court in the second appeal filed by the respondent.
The execution companyrt has replied all such objections by its order dated 7.9.1991.
On 13.3.1982 respondent company served upon him thirty days numberice of termination of his service on the premise that appellants falled to achieve the targeted premium amount.
Respondent company companytested the suit by filling a written statement in which it was companytended, inter alia, that the suit is number maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for short the Act and that the numberice of termination of the appellant is legal and valid.
Hence he has companye up in this Court with this appeal.
Appellant took out execution proceedings in which he claimed a sum of Rs.
Respondent challenged the said order by means of a writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Respondent resisted the execution by putting forth various companytentions including that the decree in unenforceable and void as the same was passed without jurisdiction.
Appellant filed the suit in the Munsifs Court Gorakhpur for a decree declaring that the said numberice of termination is illegal and void and that he companytinues to be in service of the Company with all the benefits flowing from the post.
1,02,861/ as arrears of pay due to him from the date of numberice of termination.
Appellant was appointed as Inspector on probation at Khalidabad under the Gorakhpur branch of the respondent Company with effect from 19.91980, initially for a period of twelve months subject to certain companyditions.
Appellant claims to be still in the service of National Insurance Company Limited respondent as a probationary Inspector on a companytention that the order passed by the respondent on 13.31982 terminating his probation is bad in law.
THOMAS, J. Special leave granted.
