Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 440 (RAJ)

ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Narendra Kumar Bhutani

2014-02-10

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2014
JUDGMENT : Belam Trivedi, J. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 115 of CPC challenging the order dated 18.3.13 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge 15, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 328/12, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). 2. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Rajesh Mootha for the petitioner that the respondent-plaintiff having filed the suit for enforcement of the contract of personal services, which contract being determinable, his suit was not maintainable in view of Section 14(1)(c) of the said Act. Placing heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of State Bank of India & Ors. v. S.N. Goyal (2008) 8 SCC 92 and in case of M/s. Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi AIR 2004 SC 1373 he submitted that the relief claimed in the suit being in respect of the contractual employment and the reinstatement being not permissible because specific performance of personal service cannot be ordered by the court, his only remedy would be to claim damages in the suit. 3. However, the learned counsel Mr. C.P. Sharma for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner had filed the application before the trial court at the stage when the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was already concluded. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of R.S.R.T.C. & Ors. v. Mohar Singh, 2008 AIR SCW 3567 and of this court in case of M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Ms. Neeti Bhatnagar 2013(1) WLC (Raj.) 217 he submitted that whether the right is claimed by the plaintiff in terms of common law or under Statute other than the one which created a new right for the first time, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred. 4. v. Ms. Neeti Bhatnagar 2013(1) WLC (Raj.) 217 he submitted that whether the right is claimed by the plaintiff in terms of common law or under Statute other than the one which created a new right for the first time, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it transpires that the petitioner-defendant had filed the application seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC, on the ground that the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was not maintainable, in view of Section 14 read with Section 41 of the said Act. It further appears that such application was filed by the petitioner after submitting the written statement and after the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was concluded. Apart from the fact that such an application at such a belated stage could not be entertained, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any bar contained under any Statute against filing of the suit with regard to the relief claimed by the respondent-plaintiff. There cannot be any disagreement with the decisions of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, they are not relevant to the facts of the present case as the same do not pertain to the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, it will be a matter of evidence to be appreciated by the trial court as to whether the suit of the respondent-plaintiff is maintainable or not and whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed in the suit or not. 5. In that view of the matter, the court does not find any merit in the present revision petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.