Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 301 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. v. Hari Singh

2014-01-29

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants under Section 115 of CPC challenging the order dated 29.7.13 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 713/13, whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioners seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. 2. It appears that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit before the trial court challenging the termination order passed against him by the petitioners-defendants on the ground that the order was passed in violation of the rules and regulations framed by the petitioners and in violation of principles of natural justice. In the said suit the petitioners-defendants had filed the application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the court did not have the jurisdiction as the dispute between the parties was an industrial dispute, which could be decided by the Labour Court and not by the civil court. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned judgment, against which the present revision petition has been filed. 3. The learned senior counsel Mr. J.K. Singhi for the petitioners relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Deendayal Sharma report in (2010) 6 SCC 697 submitted that when the infringement of standing orders is alleged in the plaint, the civil courts jurisdiction would be barred. Taking the court to the contents of the plaint, the learned counsel Mr. Singhi has submitted that the plaintiff having alleged violation of standing orders and the rules framed by the RSRTC, which is an industrial unit, the dispute could not be decided by the civil court. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it appears that the respondent-plaintiff has challenged the punishment order passed by the petitioners against the respondent allegedly in violation of the rules and regulations framed by the petitioners and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. At this juncture it is required to be noted that in the decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel Mr. At this juncture it is required to be noted that in the decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel Mr. Singhi, it has been specifically observed that if the infringement of standing order is alleged, civil courts jurisdiction may be held to be barred, but if the suit is based on the violation of principles of common law or constitutional provisions or on other grounds, like violation of principles of natural justice, the civil courts jurisdiction may not be held to be barred. Hence in view of the said decision, without expressing any opinion, as to whether the civil court has the jurisdiction or not to entertain the suit, the court is of the opinion there is a triable issue as regards the jurisdiction of the court, involved in the suit. As rightly observed by the trial court in the impugned order, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC when the plaintiff has challenged the orders passed by the petitioners-defendants, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. There being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court, this court does not find any substance in the present revision. 5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners be granted liberty to file the application before the trial court requesting the court to decide the issue of jurisdiction as the preliminary issue. The said submission cannot be accepted, however it is observed that if any such application is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be decided by the trial court in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, the petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******