PT. BHAGWAT DAYAL SHARMA PGIMS Vs. DR.GAURAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Civil Revision has been filed by the petitioners against the order dtd. 10/8/2020 (Annexure A-1) by which the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection ofthe plaint has been rejected and application filed by respondent/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 CPC, has been allowed by restraining the petitioners/defendants from withholding the result of the respondent/plaintiff for MS (Orthopedics) and also for issuing the relevant certificates/documents, which are consequent upon the declaration of the result.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the prayer of the plaintiff in the suit is beyond the jurisdiction of the Trial Court as the plaintiff/respondent has prayed for a direction to the petitioners/defendants to withdraw the FIR by filing a Civil Suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that apart from the said prayer, there are other prayers, which have been prayed for in the Civil Suit by the respondent/plaintiff and those are well within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. That being so, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff cannot be rejected by invoking the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC merely on the ground that one out of the several prayers is beyond the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. Suit can proceed in respect of those prayers and the same cannot be summarily dismissed by invoking the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

(3.) Once, the Competent Court of Law is within the jurisdiction to grant the prayers of declaring the enquiry illegal and also declaring the appointment of a Nodal Enquiry Officer illegal or the enquiry report not binding upon the plaintiff, the suit is maintainable and cannot be rejected merely on the ground that one of the prayer of the plaintiff/respondent in the suit for withdrawing the FIR is beyond the jurisdiction of the Trial Court.