S. SAMPATH Vs. MANOJA KUMAR SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the Order Dated 04.3.2011 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No. 9 of 2010 rejecting the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint as the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The facts leading to the present case are that Opp. Party No. 1 as Plaintiff filed C.S. No. 9 of 2010 before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar for declaration that the Plaintiff is continuing in his service as an Area Business Manager at Headquarter, Bhubaneswar with proper service conditions. In the plaint it was stated that the Plaintiff was appointed by the Defendants -Company as a Business Officer on 22.4.2004. Being satisfied with the service rendered by the Plaintiff, the Defendants -Company promoted him as Business Manager on 01.2.2006 & thereafter as Business Executive from 01.7.2006. While matter stood thus, all of a sudden on 07.7.2007 the Defendants threatened the Plaintiff to take demotion & the employer being in dominant position, the Plaintiff given his consent letter on 07.7.2001. However, the Plaintiff was transferred to Trivendrum on 10.7.2007 & on the next date i.e. 11.7.2007 the Defendants issued another letter informing that the Plaintiff is no more in service. In pursuance of the order of transfer, the Plaintiff joined at Trivendrum on 04.8.2007 & his joining report was accepted by Defendant No. 2 on the same day. When the Plaintiff was in -charge of Trivendrum Headquarter/Defendant No. 2 requested him to work independently without explaining about the independent work. On 06.8.2007 Defendant No. 5 called the Plaintiff to his Hotel 'Praveen Tourist Home' & directed the Plaintiff to go back to Odisha after resigning from service. The Plaintiff in the plaint has explained how he was being denied to discharge his duties & about the harassment caused by the Defendants. Finding no other way he has returned back to his previous Headquarter Bhubaneswar on 09.8.2007 & filed the suit.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that in view, of the specific clause mentioned in the Letter of Appointment, the jurisdiction of the Court at Chennai is clear, therefore, the Court below should have allowed the application filed by the Defendants under Order 4, Rule 11 of C.P.C. & rejected the plaint. In support of his contention he has relied on the decisions reported in : AIR 1989 SC 1239, AIR 2001 SC 416, AIR 1999 MP 271 & (1983) 4 SCC 707.

(3.) IN the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & another v. A.P. Agencies, Salem reported in : AIR 1989 SC 1239 the Apex Court held that the jurisdiction of the Court in matter of contract will depend on the situs of the contract & the cause of action arising through connecting factors. In the matter of a contract there may arise causes of action of various kinds. In a suit for damages for breach of contract the cause of action consists of the making of the contract, & of its breach, so that the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed & the breach occurred.