C.L.SONI,J. - (1.)The appeal is filed under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code') by the original defendant of the civil suit No.3333 of 1999 against the order dated 21.3.2018 passed by learned Judge, Court No.22, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Misc. Application No.1069 of 2007 filed by the appellant under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2006 passed in the above-referred suit and to restore the civil suit for its hearing on merits.
(2.)The respondent-original plaintiff filed the above suit to declare that the order of his suspension dated 9.7.1996 issued by the appellant company was void and malafide and to restrain permanently the appellant from preventing him from discharging his duty. He also claimed damages for mental torture, financial hardships and social stigma for his wrongful suspension and thereafter wrongful termination of his services. Such suit came to be allowed and the order of suspension and dismissal of the respondent from service was declared as illegal and void and against the principles of natural justice and the respondent was held entitled to damages to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- + Rs. 4,34,263.19, totaling to Rs. 10,34,263.19, to be recovered from the appellant with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2006.
(3.)It appears that to execute the judgment and decree, the respondent filed Execution Application No.539 of 2007, wherein since jangam warrant was issued to the appellant, the appellant filed application Exh.17 therein seeking to stay the execution of the judgment and decree. On such application, the Executing Court passed order dated 17.12.2007 allowing the application and ordering to stay the jangam warrant on appellant depositing 50% of the decreetal amount within two weeks from the date of the order. It is stated before the Court that the appellant had deposited the amount as ordered by the Executing Court. However, few days prior to the said order, the appellant had preferred the above referred Civil Misc. Application No.1069 of 2007 under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code. Learned Judge has dismissed such application by the impugned order.