SAVE THE CHILDREN FUND Vs. SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.4.11 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 363/09, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC.

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No.1-original plaintiff was working as the Programme Coordinator with the petitioner-defendant and his services were terminated by the petitioner vide order dated 24.10.2000. THE respondent No.1 had earlier filed one suit challenging the said termination order in the court of Civil Judge, (JD) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in which an application under Order VII Rule 11 was filed by the petitioner-defendant contending interalia that the suit was barred under the Specific Relief Act. THE said application was allowed by the said court, and the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed by the appellate court, and the second appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff was also dismissed by the High Court. THE respondent-plaintiff thereafter filed the present suit against the petitioner-defendant before the trial court seeking the damages to the tune of Rs. 30,26,000/- with interest. In the present suit also the petitioner-defendant had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the suit on the ground that the court did not have the jurisdiction. THE said application was dismissed by the trial court vide the order dated 9.9.04, and the writ petition filed against the said order was dismissed by the High Court vide the order dated 27.3.06. THE said order was carried to the Supreme Court by the petitioner. THE Supreme Court vide the order dated 29.3.07 dismissed the said appeal by observing interalia that:

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it appears that the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC on the ground that the issues sought to be tried as preliminary issues were mixed questions of law and facts and could not be decided as preliminary issues. It is needless to say that the impugned order passed by the trial court is discretionary in nature and the learned counsel Mr. Mahendra Singh for the petitioner has failed to point out any gross illegality or perversity in the said order passed by the trial court. It is also axiomatic that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and normally the High Court should not interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the trial court unless the same are exfacie perverse or illegal or causing gross injustice to any party.