JUDGMENT : T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J. 1. This Interlocutory Application (Cross Objections) in S.A. No. 212 of 2004, has been filed by the Cross Objector/Respondent, challenging the decree and Judgment, dated 30.10.2003 in A.S. No. 781 of 2000 passed by the learned VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Visakhapatnam, (for short ‘the 1st Appellate Court’) partly reversing the decree and judgment dated 13.04.1998, in O.S. No. 806 of 1996 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. The Respondent is the Appellant, who initiated the Second Appeal No. 212 of 2004. By Judgment dated 30.07.2024, this Court dismissed the Second Appeal for default due to the Appellant’s failure to appear. Consequently, this Court has kept pending the present I.A. No. 1 of 2005. 3. The Cross Objector/Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S. No. 806 of 1996 before the trial Court, for recovery of Rs.39,100/- and also for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to provide employment to her children as per the promise in their letter dated 09.07.1987. The Respondent/Appellant is the Defendant in the said suit. 4. Referring to the parties as arrayed in the suit in O.S. No. 806 of 1996 is expedient to mitigate potential confusion and better comprehend the case. 5. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows: The Plaintiff's, Sri B. Govardhan, worked as a Mazdoor in Visakha Cement works of the Defendant Company. His employment was confirmed by the Defendant vide its letter MD 80: 4882 dated 14.10.1980. Mr. Govardhan died in a Railway Accident on 09.07.1987 at Machiryala of Adilabad District, while travelling from Waltair to New Delhi on Official Duty. On the same day, the Defendant company’s Managing Director addressed all the staff members and gave a letter to the Plaintiff, promised to, provide Rs.600/- per month for the education of the Plaintiff’s four children, offer employment opportunities to the Plaintiff’s four children and pay the Plaintiff Rs.550/- per month for her maintenance for the rest of her life. The Defendant fulfilled these promises and paid Rs.1,150/- per month until July 1993. However, payments were stopped after that date. Despite numerous requests, the Defendant has resumed payments since August 1993. The Defendant fulfilled these promises and paid Rs.1,150/- per month until July 1993. However, payments were stopped after that date. Despite numerous requests, the Defendant has resumed payments since August 1993. The Plaintiff’s eldest son, B. Arun, has completed an ITI course in Diesel Mechanics and is qualified for employment, but the Defendant has delayed his job placement for various reasons. According to the letter dated 09.07.1987, and given that Mr.Govardhan’s death occurred while he was on duty, the Defendant is obligated to continue both the financial support and the promised employment. The Plaintiff is owned Rs.39,100/- which is the amount of Rs.1,150/- per month for the period from 01.08.1993 to 01.06.1996. 6. In the written statement, the Defendant refuted the plaint averments, contended that the letter alleged to be issued by the Defendant is a forged one and the Plaintiff’s husband was not identified until 11.07.1987, making it impossible for the letter to have been issued on 07.07.1987. The Defendant further rejects any obligation to provide payments or employment to the Plaintiff’s children, denying that any payment of Rs.1,150/- per month were ever made. Additionally, the Defendant notes that the company was declared a sick unit in 1990, and its management was transferred to Duncans Agro Industries Limited vide the orders of the B.I.F.R. dated 16.6.1994, nullifying any prior commitments. The Plaintiff or her children are not entitled for any employment on compassionate grounds. The Defendant deposited Rs.79,760/- as compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act with the Competent Authority and that amount was disbursed to the plaintiff. The defendant bear all the expenses to bring the dead body to Visakhapatnam and it also borne the funeral expenses. The Plaintiff also received Rs.1,00,000/- from the Railway Department. The Defendant further asserts that even if the letter was genuine, it does not bind the current Management. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues: (i) Whether the Defendant is under any obligation to pay any amount and to provide any employment to the Plaintiff’s children? (ii) Whether the letter dated 09.07.1987 is true and valid? (iii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount with interest as prayed for? (iv) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? (v) To what relief? 8. During the trial, PWs. (ii) Whether the letter dated 09.07.1987 is true and valid? (iii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount with interest as prayed for? (iv) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? (v) To what relief? 8. During the trial, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 and A.2 on behalf of the Plaintiff. Conversely, on behalf of the Defendant, DW-1 was examined and marked Exs.B.1 and B.2. 9. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. 10. Aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff filed an Appeal in A.S. No. 781 of 2000 on file of the 1st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court, being the final fact-finding Court, framed the following points for consideration: (i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the amount as claimed in the suit? (ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction relating to employment of the Plaintiff’s son? 11. The 1st Appellate Court, after scrutinizing oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, partly allowed the Appeal (vide its Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2003), modified the suit in O.S. No. 806 of 1996 on the file of the trial Court and it is partly decreed for Rs.18,100/- in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant with interest there on @ 9% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of the 1st Appellate Court’s decree and at 6% percent per annum thereafter till realization and for proportionate costs. Assailing the same, the Defendant preferred the present Second Appeal. 12. Heard Sri. K.A. Narasimham, learned Counsel representing the Cross Objector- Respondent-Plaintiff and none represented the Respondent-Appellant-Defendant. 13. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff asserts that the 1st Appellate Court erred by granting Rs.550/- per month for the Plaintiff’s maintenance while rejecting Rs.600/- per month for her son’s education. Both the claims should have been upheld, particularly, as the 1st Appellate Court accepted Ex.A.2 as valid evidence. The 1st Appellate Court failed to properly evaluate the Plaintiff's testimony, the basis of her claim, and the circumstances under which she approached the Court. The Defendant, by executing Ex.A.2, had agreed to provide employment to the sons of its deceased employee, Govardhan. The 1st Appellate Court failed to properly evaluate the Plaintiff's testimony, the basis of her claim, and the circumstances under which she approached the Court. The Defendant, by executing Ex.A.2, had agreed to provide employment to the sons of its deceased employee, Govardhan. Therefore, there was no legal reason why the Court could not have directed the Defendant to fulfill its obligations under Ex.A.2. The 1st Appellate Court should have acknowledged that, the Defendant company, after Govardhan’s death, was expected to help the family, but instead, they made the Plaintiff go through unnecessary legal troubles. 14. Despite being granted several adjournments, no representation has been made on behalf of the Respondent-Appellant-Defendant. 15. In light of the pleadings and the findings recorded by the 1st Appellate Court as well as the trial Court, the following point is to be determined: Whether the trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court is erred in holding that the Cross Objector/Respondent/Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, directing the Respondent/Appellant/ Defendant to provide employment to the children of the Plaintiff? POINT: 16. The Plaintiff asserts that the Managing Director of the Defendant made an explicit promise to facilitate employment for her children, relying on Ex.A.2, a letter dated 09.07.1987. The trial Court, however, held that the Ex.A.2 alleged to be given by the Managing Director of the Defendant is not genuine and it seems to be fabricated and the signature of the Managing Director was forged. In arriving at this determination, the trial Court meticulously scrutinized both the oral testimony provided by the Plaintiff and the content of Ex.A.2. The Plaintiff has filed an Appeal against the said finding before the 1st Appellate Court, and the 1st Appellate Court has formulated the issue of whether she is entitled to a mandatory injunction concerning her son’s employment. 17. The 1st Appellate Court’s observations in paragraphs No. 12, 13 and 21 of its judgment are as follows: 12. The language used in Ex.A.2 shows that it was not prepared by paying much attention to the form and it appears that a draft was prepared before obtaining the carbon copy under Ex.A.2. This generally happens when the text is prepared in hurry. This is one important circumstance which shows the naturality in issuing the letter Ex.A.2. 13. The language used in Ex.A.2 shows that it was not prepared by paying much attention to the form and it appears that a draft was prepared before obtaining the carbon copy under Ex.A.2. This generally happens when the text is prepared in hurry. This is one important circumstance which shows the naturality in issuing the letter Ex.A.2. 13. A person intending to forge a document would generally get the signature forged at a place where the signature has to be made as per the text. In Ex.A.2 the letter shows the place of signature put at the right bottom of the letter. But the signature is at the left bottom of the letter. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 21. For the reasons stated above, I hold that the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be modified reversing the finding as to payment of maintenance amount for the life of the Plaintiff and confirming the remaining part of the judgment. 18. Both the trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court have given cogent and convincing reasons for rejecting Ex.A.2. Upon reviewing the rationale outlined in paragraph No. 21 of the 1st Appellate Court's judgment, along with the determinations made by both Courts, this Court concludes that both Courts have sufficiently substantiated their decision to deny the mandatory injunction sought by the Plaintiff. 19. The findings of the trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court, are neither perverse nor a result of misinterpretation of documents or misreading of evidence. After careful reading of the material on record, this Court finds that the trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court concurrently dismissed the Plaintiff's suit partly with regard to the relief of mandatory injunction by recording all the findings of facts against the Plaintiff enumerated above, and the findings were neither against the pleadings nor evidence nor against any provisions of law. Consequently, for the reasons articulated above, this Court finds no justifiable cause to interfere with the conclusions of the trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court. Accordingly, the Point is answered against the Cross Objector/Plaintiff, and therefore, the Cross Objections are liable to be dismissed. 20. In conclusion, the Cross Objections in I.A. No. 1 of 2005 are dismissed without costs. Consequently, the Judgment and decree in A.S. No. 781 of 2000, dated 30.10.2003, passed by the learned VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, is hereby affirmed. 20. In conclusion, the Cross Objections in I.A. No. 1 of 2005 are dismissed without costs. Consequently, the Judgment and decree in A.S. No. 781 of 2000, dated 30.10.2003, passed by the learned VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, is hereby affirmed. 21. Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, in this Cross Objections, shall stand closed.