VIJAYA BANK LTD Vs. M S SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises a short question on the meaning and scope of Rules 5 and 6 of Or.XXXIII of the; CPC.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the petition are these : The respondent was an employee in the Vijaya Bank, Ltd., (The Bank) which is the petitioner before me. He was removed from serrvice by an order dt.31-3-1970. He challenged the said order as a, wrongful termination of his services in a suit instituted for damages. The suit was filed in forma pauperis. During the preliminary enquiry held by the Court below, the Bank raised an objection, among others, that the contents of the application do not show a cause of action. The respondent, in support of the merits of his claim and the property owned by him produced some evidence. So did the Bank to prove the contrary. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent is a pauper and that the allegations in his application do show a cause of action. Before, I proceed further, it is better that I set out the relevant portion in para 7 of the order of the Court below, which reads as follows :

(3.) From the nature of the order, it is apparent that the trial Court refused to consider the rebuttal evidence produced by the Bank on the limited question that falls to be determined under Rule 5 of Or.XXXIII. For the Bank, it was insisted that the Court should consider its evidence. But the Court was of the opinion that at that stage and without giving further opportunity to the respondent, to explain, the evidence of the Bank cannot be considered Before me, the approach made by the Court below is criticised by Mr. M. N. Hegde for the Bank. Mr. Subba Rao, Counsel for the respondent, however, sought to support the order by submitting that the Court cannot consider the evidence adduced by the Bank on the question whether the allegations in the application show a cause of action or not, and that, that question should be determined solely on the plaint averments. He further submitted that the Court, in the instant case, has considered all the evidence adduced by both the parties to the suit.