VICTOR JOHN SELVAM, S/O. LATE K.S. THANGAIAH Vs. BANGALORE BAPTIST HOSPITAL BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560024, THE CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BOARD, BAPTIST HOSPITAL, C.M.C. HOSPITAL, VELLORE AND THE DIRECTOR, C.E.O., BANGALORE BAPTIST HOSPITAL,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appellant was a doctor employed by the first defendant - respondent. The appellant claims that he had been terminated unlawfully from service by the respondents, in respect of which, he had filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration that his termination was bad in law and for reinstatement and consequential benefits. The trial court has rejected the suit under Order VII Rule1');">11of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908. on an interlocutory application by the defendants. The trial court has rejected the plaint after discussion as to the position of law and relying on case -law that was cited at the bar, while drawing specific attention to Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Since it was open to the appellant -plaintiff to have sought for damages even if the termination from service was said to be illegal and since Section 14 is clear that when the compensation is adequate relief, the plaintiff would not be entitled to seek specific performance of contract. In that view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the order of the court below. However, the learned counsel would submit that it was always possible for the plaintiff to have sought for an alternative relief and since the trial court did not choose to afford him breathing time, it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel would submit that even now, it is not too late for this court to remand the matter with an appropriate direction to enable the plaintiff to establish his case before the trial court. While the learned counsel for the respondents would point out that the impugned order of termination was of the year 2001 and it was the plaintiff's choice to frame the suit in the mariner that he chose to do, there was no impediment for the plaintiff to have sought for suitable relief at the appropriate time. At this remote point of time, if the appellant is to be enabled again to reagitate the matter, the respondent would suffer the disadvantage of having to defend the case, in respect of which, there may be no information or material forthcoming at this point of time.

(2.) THIS is a valid objection taken. There is no ground made out for interference. The appeal lacks merit and is rejected.