Dismissed

Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University and Ors. v. Jasbir Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Dec 2019CR/7652/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition challenging the trial court's order rejecting an application for plaint rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The suit, filed by an employee, sought damages for harassment and financial loss due to a delayed departmental enquiry. The learned single judge held that the plaint did not warrant rejection under Order 7 Rul

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no substantive opinion expressed on merits of the damages claim.

Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University and… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

Ci vi l Revi si on No. 7652 of 2019 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 02. 12. 2019

¶3

Vi ce Chancel l or , Kur ukshet r a Uni ver si t y, Kur ukshet r a and ot her s

¶4

. . Pet i t i oner s ver sus

¶5

Jasbi r Si ngh and ot her s CORAM: - HON' BLE MRS. JUSTI CE ALKA SARI N

¶6

. . . . . Respondent s

¶7

Pr esent : Mr . Amar j i t Si ngh Vi r k, Advocat e f or t he pet i t i oner s

¶8

ALKA SARI N, J. :

¶9

The pr esent r evi si on pet i t i on has been f i l ed chal l engi ng t he or der dat ed 17. 08. 2019 wher eby t he appl i cat i on f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner s/ def endant s f or r ej ect i on of t he pl ai nt under Or der 7 Rul e 11 of t he Code of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e, 1908 ( her ei naf t er r ef er r ed t o as “ CPC” ) has been di smi ssed.

¶10

A br i ef f act ual mat r i x of t he f act s woul d be

¶11

necessar y.

¶12

The pl ai nt i f f / r espondent her ei n f i l ed a sui t f or damages on t he gr ound t hat t he aut hor i t i es of Kur ukshet r a Uni ver si t y have f i l ed a f al se compl ai nt agai nst hi m f or some f i nanci al i r r egul ar i t i es whi ch r esul t ed i n t he i ni t i at i on of a depar t ment al enqui r y agai nst hi m i n t he year 2012. The pl ai nt i f f / r espondent has pr ef er r ed t he sui t on t he gr ound t hat he has been subj ect ed t o physi cal and ment al har assment as al so f i nanci al l osses due t o t he ongoi ng depar t ment al enqui r y whi ch i s pendi ng adj udi cat i on si nce t he year 2012. The

¶13

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.09 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CR- 7652- 2019

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

pet i t i oner s/ def endant s moved an appl i cat i on under Or der 7, Rul e 11 CPC f or r ej ect i on of t he pl ai nt on t he gr ounds: ( i ) t he sui t i s pr e- mat ur e; ( i i ) t he pl ai nt i f f has no cause of act i on; ( i i i ) pl ai nt i f f has conceal ed t he t r ue and mat er i al f act s about t he depar t ment al pr oceedi ngs f or f i nanci al i r r egul ar i t i es and ear l i er cases f i l ed by hi m i n t he Hi gh Cour t ; ( i v) pl ai nt i f f i s t r yi ng t o del ay t he depar t ment al pr oceedi ngs i ni t i at ed by t he Kur ukshet r a Uni ver si t y; and ( v) t he ci vi l cour t has no j ur i sdi ct i on t o t r y t he sui t . The t r i al Cour t , by a det ai l ed or der , di smi ssed t he appl i cat i on under Or der 7, Rul e 11 CPC. Hence, t he pr esent r evi si on pet i t i on chal l engi ng t he sai d or der dat ed 17. 08. 2019 di smi ssi ng t he appl i cat i on of t he pet i t i oner - def endant .

¶17

I t i s t r i t e t hat whi l e consi der i ng an appl i cat i on under Or der 7, Rul e 11 CPC onl y t he aver ment s made i n t he pl ai nt ar e t o be seen. I f cause of act i on i s made on a pl ai n r eadi ng of t he pl ai nt , i t i s not l i abl e t o be r ej ect ed mer el y on an appl i cat i on under Or der 7, Rul e 11 CPC. I n t he pr esent case, t he pl ai nt i f f / r espondent has sought pecuni ar y damages f or t he al l eged wr ongf ul act s commi t t ed by t he pet i t i oner s/ def endant s. A r eadi ng of t he pl ai nt di scl oses t hat t he sui t has been pr ef er r ed by t he pl ai nt i f f on t he gr ound t hat he i s suf f er i ng physi cal and ment al har assment as al so f i nanci al l osses at t he hands of t he pet i t i oner s/ def endant s due t o i nor di nat e del ay i n deci di ng t he depar t ment al pr oceedi ngs.

¶18

I do not f i nd t hi s t o be a f i t case wher e t he sui t shoul d be r ej ect ed at t he out set under Or der 7, Rul e 11 CPC.

¶19

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.09 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CR- 7652- 2019

¶21

- 3 -

¶22

The pl ai nt i f f i n t he pr esent sui t i s onl y seeki ng damages and has not chal l enged any of t he or der s passed by t he Enqui r y Commi ssi on nor has any show cause not i ce been chal l enged i n t he sui t . The sui t cannot be di smi ssed mer el y by bal dl y cont endi ng t hat t her e i s no cause of act i on or t hat t he sui t i s pr e- mat ur e. As r egar ds t he ot her gr ounds r ai sed by t he pet i t i oner s/ def endant s t hat t he pl ai nt i f f has conceal ed t he t r ue and mat er i al f act s about t he pendency of depar t ment al pr oceedi ngs and ear l i er cases f i l ed by hi m i n t he Hi gh Cour t , t he pet i t i oner s/ def endant s ar e unabl e t o poi nt out any par t i cul ar case f i l ed by t he pl ai nt i f f / r espondent wher ei n he has sought damages or any ot her case whi ch has been f i l ed on t he same cause of act i on.

¶23

The sui t bei ng f or damages, t he same woul d not be bar r ed by Sect i on 32 of t he Kur ukshet r a Uni ver si t y Act , 1986 and t hi s i s not a mat t er whi ch can be t r i ed by t he Educat i onal Tr i bunal and as such i s not bar r ed by any l aw. Ther e i s al so no mer i t i n t he gr ound t hat def i ci ent cour t f ee has been af f i xed. The sui t has t ent at i vel y been val ued by t he pl ai nt i f f / r espondent at Rs. 200/ - . The r el evant par a 22 of t he pl ai nt r eads as under : -

¶24

“ 22. That t he pl ai nt i f f has f i l ed t he pr esent sui t f or damages and t he quest i on t o assess t he l oss t o t he pl ai nt i f f i s yet open whi ch i s t o be deci ded by t hi s Hon’ bl e Cour t and when t hi s Hon’ bl e Cour t wi l l assess t he l oss t o t he pl ai nt i f f and wi l l di r ect t o t he pl ai nt i f f t o pay t he cour t f ee, t he pl ai nt i f f wi l l i mmedi at el y deposi t t he r equi si t e cour t f ee and pr esent l y t he pl ai nt i f f i s af f i xi ng an amount of Rs. 5/ - as cour t f ee consi der i ng

¶25

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.09 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CR- 7652- 2019

¶27

- 4 -

¶28

t he val ue of t he sui t f or t he pur pose of j ur i sdi ct i on as Rs. 200/ - . ”

¶29

The pl ai nt i f f / r espondent , agai nst whom depar t ment al pr oceedi ngs wer e i ni t i at ed i n t he year 2012, has been cont est i ng t he same f or t he l ast seven year s wi t h no cl osur e i n si ght and, hence, was compel l ed t o f i l e t he sui t f or damages.

¶30

I do not f i nd any cogent r eason t o i nt er f er e i n t he wel l r easoned or der passed by t he t r i al Cour t r ej ect i ng t he appl i cat i on under Or der 7, Rul e 11 CPC. The pet i t i on i s devoi d of any mer i t s and, hence, di smi ssed. I t i s however , cl ar i f i ed t hat not hi ng st at ed i n t hi s or der shal l be t r eat ed as an expr essi on of opi ni on on t he mer i t s of t he case.

¶31

( ALKA SARI N) JUDGE

¶32

1. 2019 par kash

¶33

NOTE: Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES/ NO

¶34

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.09 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University and Ors. v. Jasbir Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University and Ors. v. Jasbir Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khanna Improvement Trust, Khanna and Anr. Vs Sita Devi and Ors.

Mahan Singh Vs Assistant Executive Engineer and Ors.

(O&M) Ram Kali and Ors. Vs Jitender Swaroop and Ors.

Lachhman Singh Vs Satinderpal Singh

M/S Punjab Advertising Company Vs M/S. Cygnus World High School and Ors.

Gurinderbir Singh Vs Amarjit Singh and Others