Dismissed

Aircel Cellular Ltd. v. Sandeep Venugopal

Madras HC1 Dec 2014A/4936/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application seeking rejection of a plaint claiming employment compensation. The court held that questions regarding limitation and cause of action requiring evidence or fact determination cannot be decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and should be tried in the suit itself.

What did the court decide?

Application to reject plaint dismissed.

Aircel Cellular Ltd. Vs Sandeep Venugopal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

Application No. 4936 of 2014 in

¶3

C.S. No. 63 of 2014

¶4

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

¶5

The defendant in C.S. No. 63 of 2014 has taken out this application seeking to reject the plaint in the above suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff claiming a sum of Rs.27,80,895/- with interest.

¶6

The case of the plaintiff, as narrated in the plaint, is that an offer of employment extended on 06.9.2010 by the defendant Company for the post of Manager – Customer Service (Collections) was withdrawn unilaterally on 25.9.2010 in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. Hence, the suit has been filed claiming the above sum as compensation.

¶7

Though the defendant has filed the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff, has come up with this application to reject the plaint contending that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit itself is an abuse of judicial process. The applicant / defendant further contended that the offer was given to the respondent / plaintiff on condition that the acceptance, in writing, should be given within three

¶8

¶9

days from the date of offer and to join the duty on or before 20.9.2010. According to the applicant, the respondent had received the offer letter on 06.9.2010 and he had accepted the same by way of an e-mail dated 15.9.2010 which is well after the expiry of the time specified in the offer letter. Besides, the respondent had also not reported or joined the duty on or before 20.9.2010 as indicated in the offer letter. Therefore, it is contended that the offer extended to the respondent was withdrawn by the applicant Company and that there was no concluded contract between the parties. Hence, it was pleaded that there was no cause of action for the suit. It was also contended that the suit itself was barred by limitation as per Article 55 of the Limitation Act as, admittedly, the offer was withdrawn by the applicant Company on 25.9.2010, the suit ought to have been filed on or before 25.9.2013. As the suit is filed on 27.01.2014, it is barred by limitation.

¶10

The respondent / plaintiff filed a counter affidavit contending that the application itself is not maintainable and that the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 ( a ) ( d ) CPC. Since there is a cause of action and the question of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be tried under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application.

¶11

¶12

Heard Ms. Nayanthika, learned counsel appearing for the applicant / defendant and Mr. C. Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff and perused the records.

¶13

The only question that has to be decided in this application is whether the plaint has to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶14

On the point of cause of the action, from the materials available on record, it is seen the offer of employment for the post of 'Manager – Customer Service (Collections) made by the applicant / defendant Company on 06.9.2010, was accepted by the respondent / plaintiff by e-mail dated 15.9.2010. But, however, admittedly, the said offer was unilaterally withdrawn by the applicant on 25.9.2010. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that if really the three days period mentioned in the offer letter for joining was intended upon, there was no necessity for the applicant / defendant to send the letter on 25.9.2010 withdrawing the offer after the acceptance was sent on 15.9.2010, which is admittedly beyond the period specified in the letter. It is also seen that for the notices issued by the respondent / plaintiff, the applicant / defendant, for the first time, has sent a reply on 25.4.2011 stating that the offer made on 06.9.2010 was not accepted within the three days period as mentioned therein. As such,

¶15

¶16

it is clear that the cause of action for the suit arose on 25.4.2011 which is the date of the reply from the applicant / defendant Company mentioning the ground for not accepting the offer by the respondent within three days, as the reason for withdrawing the offer.

¶17

Though the parties have given the above dates to substantiate their respective claims, but to determine the correctness of the said dates and the date from which the point of limitation has to be reckoned, are all matters of evidence which cannot be decided in an application under order VII Rule 11 CPC. The question of limitation is a pure question of law and fact and unless from a plain reading of the plaint it appears that the suit is barred by limitation, the duty is cast upon the Court to decide the limitation even in the absence of a plea. But in this case, the dates which the parties are relying on to substantiate their respective cases, is intricately linked with the question of limitation. Hence, unless the issue is framed on the same and the parties are allowed to let in evidence on the same, the question of limitation cannot be decided in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶18

Insofar as the cause of action is concerned, it is a bundle of facts, which has to be gathered from a reading of the plaint and not

¶19

¶20

by picking up certain portions of the plaint and plead that there was no cause of action. Clause (a) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with disclosure of cause of action and Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the bar of the suit by any law. The idea undermined in clause (a) is that when no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, the Court will not unnecessarily protract and the party should not be unnecessarily harassed in the suit. When there is no cause of action, the court has power to reject the plaint. Therefore, so long as the plaint discloses cause of action which requires determination by the Court, the mere opinion that the plaintiff may not succeed in the suit, cannot be a ground for rejecting the plaint.

¶21

Insofar as clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is concerned, it deals with the plaint and the Rules speak about the particulars that are to be contained in the plaint, how the plaintiff and the defendant are to be described, how a ground of exemption from limitation law is to be pleaded and how the relief sought to be framed. Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC empowers the Court to reject the plaint if the suit is barred by any law. To decide whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not, as stated earlier, the Court has to look only to the allegations in the plaint and as such, the allegations should be assumed to be correct.

¶22

¶23

As regards the question of limitation is concerned,

¶24

admittedly, it is a mixed question of law and fact. The plaintiff, in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the plaint averments, has explained how the suit is in time. In view of the averments made in the plaint, the requirement of clause (d) of Rule 11 CPC is not fully satisfied as the plaint is very clear about the cause of action and limitation. Suffice it to say that the above mentioned statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint that the suit was within the limitation and the cause of action accrued on 25.04.2011, the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC is not attracted. No doubt, the parties may take interpretation of law as they may be advised and in the matter relating to limitation, the plaintiff may insist that or assert that the period of limitation should be counted from a particular date. The defendant may or may not agree with the said view. Order VII Rule 11 CPC casts a duty on the Court and it cannot be left to the event of an objection in this respect to be raised by one party. It is the duty of the Court to find out from the contents of the plaint whether there was any disclosure of cause of action and if so, it was barred under any provision of law. If a controversy arises, the Court of original jurisdiction has to decide the controversy in accordance with law

¶25

¶26

deciding the disputed question of fact as may be necessary. Such disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶27

In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Natrajan vs. Ashim Bai and another [(2007) 14 SCC 183] wherein Their Lordships while referring to Order 7 Rule 11( d ) CPC, held in paragraphs 7 and 8, as follows:-

¶28

Para 7 : “Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :

¶29

“11. Rejection of plaint .-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases : (a) - (c) * * *

¶30

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

¶31

Para 8 : An application for rejection of the plaint can be filed if the allegations made in the plaint even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety appear to be barred by any law. The question as to whether a suit is barred by limitation or not would, therefore, depend upon the facts and

¶32

¶33

circumstances of each case. For the said purpose, only the averments made in the plaint are relevant. At this stage, the court would not be entitled to consider the case of the defence. {See [Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association [(2005) 7 SCC 510]}.”

¶34

Therefore, in my opinion, Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC applies to cases only where the statement, made by the plaintiff in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute, shows that the suit is barred by law. Further, when the dispute is to be dealt with elaborately on facts, the Courts cannot venture into deciding the same while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is also open to the applicant / defendant to raise the question of limitation as one of the issues and get the same decided in accordance with law in the suit itself.

¶35

In view of the foregoing discussion, I see no merits in the application to reject the plaint and the same is dismissed.

¶36

01 – 12 – 2014

¶37

gri

¶38

Note to Office: Issue order on 02.12.2014 B/o gri

¶39

¶40

¶41

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.