ICICI BANK LTD. Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR BHUTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant under Sec. 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dated 18.3.13 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge 15, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 328/12, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec. 14 of the Specific Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').

(2.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Rajesh Mootha for the petitioner that the respondent-plaintiff having filed the suit for enforcement of the contract of personal services, which contract being determinable, his suit was not maintainable in view of Sec. 14(1)(c) of the said Act. Placing heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. S.N. Goyal (2008) 8 SCC 92 and in case of M/s. Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manorama Sirsi AIR 2004 SC 1373 he submitted that the relief claimed in the suit being in respect of the contractual employment and the reinstatement being not permissible because specific performance of personal service cannot be ordered by the court, his only remedy would be to claim damages in the suit.

(3.) However, the learned counsel Mr. C.P. Sharma for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner had filed the application before the trial court at the stage when the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was already concluded. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of R.S.R.T.C. & Ors. Vs. Mohar Singh, 2008 AIR SCW 3567 and of this court in case of M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ms. Neeti Bhatnagar 2013(1) WLC (Raj.) 217 he submitted that whether the right is claimed by the plaintiff in terms of common law or under Statute other than the one which created a new right for the first time, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred.