PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK Vs. RAJESH BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Bank has challenged the order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Amritsar vide which application under Order 14 Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC for framing preliminary issues and deciding the same before the main issues was declined.

(2.) Brief facts are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order of dismissal dated 19.02.2008, dismissing the plaintiff from service on 14.01.2008 and suspension prior to dismissal was illegal, void, ab initio and were liable to be set aside. A suit for mandatory injunction was also filed directing the Bank to take plaintiff back in service with all consequential reliefs. In the said suit, respondent has pleaded in paras no.2, 3 and 5 of the plaint in the following manner:-

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant/Bank. An application under Order 14 Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC for framing of preliminary issues on the ground that the Bank has taken preliminary objection in respect of jurisdiction and limitation as the suit is not maintainable under the provision of law as no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The defendant/Bank also pleaded that the proceedings have taken place outside the jurisdiction of Amritsar. The fraud was committed at Batala, Distt. Gurdaspur. Inquiry was held at Kapurthala. Chargesheet was served at Central Jail, Gurdaspur and order of dismissal was served at Batala. The cause of action is deemed to have accrued to the plaintiff in the territory where the employee suffers its consequences and where his rights were infringed. With this defence, the defendant/Bank pleaded that the Court at Amritsar was having no jurisdiction merely because order of suspension was served upon respondent at Amritsar. The defendant/Bank also claimed that the suit filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred as the order of dismissal was passed on 14.01.2008 and the suit was filed almost after 8 years of that order.