Can a Plaint be rejected on the quantum of Monetary Damages sought? NO says HC,

 

The Delhi High Court has observed that a plaint cannot be rejceted on the ground that ground that quantum of Monetary Damages sought cannot be granted.

A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal in the case of Hema Gusain Vs India International Centre and Ors held that under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the expression “ordinarily” suggests that in some cases further damages can be awarded by the Court, the quantum of which can only be decided after the trial.

Brief Facts and Submissions 

The plaintiff who was the employee of the defendant has contended that his resignation was not voluntary and was forced upon him by the defendants and therefore, amounts to illegal termination. The defendant, on the other hand has pleaded for the rejection of the suit stating that the same is 'barred by law'.

Senior Counsel for the Defendant argued that the plaintiff had voluntarily resigned from her service and there is nothing to suggest that the plaintiff was forced to resign. 

He submitted that the plaintiff had withdrawn the first suit without seeking liberty to file a fresh suit and therefore, the fresh suit, which is based on substantially the same pleadings, is barred. It was further being averred that even if it is presumed that the plaintiff was wrongfully terminated, he can at best claim compensation for the notice period, which the plaintiff was entitled to under the terms of her employment, which was three months. Reliance was placed on S. S. Shetty Vs. Bharat Nidhi, Ltd., 1957 Latest Caselaw 67 SC

Reliance was also placed in  DAHIBEN vs. ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI, 2020 Latest Caselaw 418 SC to contend that where the Court finds the suit to be manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the Court would be justified in exercising the power conferred under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the plaint.

The decision of Bhargavi Construction And another Vs. Kothakapu, (2018) was also cited to submit that the expression "barred by any law" occurring in clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the CPC, not only includes any Act enacted by the legislature, but also includes “judicial decisions of the Supreme Court", which are binding on all the Courts in India by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 

The Counsel for the plaintiff countered the same with contention that the previous suit filed was simplicitor withdrawn by the plaintiff and there was no adjudication on merits and therefore, the principle of res judicata will not apply. Reliance was placed on Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat, 2021 Latest Caselaw 313 SC The cause of action for filing the present suit was entirely
different from the cause of action for filing the previous suit, he averred.

It was further being submitted on his behalf that damages beyond the notice period and various factors have to be considered by the Court while granting compensation, which can only be proved in a
trial.

High Court's Observation 

 

The Court noted that the cause of action for filing the present suit is entirely different from that of the earlier suit. There may be factual narrations that are common to both the suits, but the cause of action and reliefs sought are entirely different, it said.

"Taking into account that the previous suit was not decided on merits, but was withdrawn by the plaintiff, the plea of res judicata would be beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC," the Court rejected contention of non-maintainability of the suit.

Discussing the scope of scope of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court opined that it is limited only to the extent whether or not in terms of averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint, the suit is maintainable.  

The Court  further analysed the defendant's reliance on S.S Shetty wherein it was held that "if the contract expressly provides that it is terminable upon,. e.g., a month's notice, the damages will ordinarily be a month's wages ....No compensation can be claimed in respect of the injury done to the servant's feelings by the circumstances of his dismissal, nor in respect of extra difficulty of finding work resulting from those circumstances."

In view of the above, it noted that undoubtedly, the law laid down by the Supreme Court would be covered under the expression “barred by any law” occurring in Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. However, it has to be seen whether the paragraph quoted above expresses a clear position of law and whether the same can be relied upon for rejecting the plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

It arrived at the below conclusion:  

 

"The expression “ordinarily” used in the passage above, suggests that in some cases further damages can be awarded by the Court. The quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff can only be decided after the trial. Further, the damages can be awarded only if the court comes to the conclusion that the resignation was not voluntary and amounted to unlawful termination. The question whether the termination was unlawful can only be determined in a trial. Therefore, a trial would be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

Further noting that the defendant's reliance was not in the context of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court was of the opinion that even if it is assumed that the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation beyond the notice period, a trial would be necessary to determine whether she was unlawfully terminated or not.

'"So, the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis that the quantum of damages claimed in the plaint cannot be granted," the Court held. 

CASE NAME- Hema Gusain Vs India International Centre and Ors

CITATION- CS(OS) 251/2022

CORAM- Justice Amit Bansal 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure