Dharam Pal Gupta vs Managing Director, HVPNL and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 27678.CII of 2013

The application is allowed and annexed written statement of defendant no. 4 (to the revision petition) is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CM No. 20911.CII of 2012

Allowed as prayed for.

CR No. 4947 of 2012

Plaintiff Dharam Pal Gupta has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 12.6.2012 passed by the trial court thereby allowing application Annexure P/3 filed by defendant no. 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC (in short, CPC) for rejection of plaint Annexure P/1 instituted by plaintiff-petitioner against respondents/defendants and thereby dropping the proceedings in the suit against defendant no. 4.

Plaintiff was employee of Haryana State Electricity Board, predecessor-in-interest of Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL). Defendants no. 1 to 3 are Managing Director, Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineer respectively (by designation) of HVPNL whereas defendant no. 4 GC Bajaj is retired Superintendent from the office of defendant no. 3. Defendant no. 4 has been impleaded by name.

Earlier suit filed by the plaintiff regarding claim of his seniority was decreed. During implementation of the said decree, the plaintiff allegedly faced hassles and harassment at the hands of defendants, particularly defendant no. 4 as dealing official. Various frivolous objections were allegedly raised. The plaintiff had to file execution petition wherein also various objections were raised. Ultimately, the plaintiff succeeded in the execution petition. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that defendant no. 4 had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 30,000/- from the plaintiff for implementation of judgment and decree of the court regarding refixation of seniority of the plaintiff. In the instant suit, the plaintiff has claimed damages for his harassment etc. as well as for delay in implementation of the judgment and decree of the court, along with relief of mandatory injunction.

Defendant no. 4 in his application Annexure P/3 alleged that plaintiff has neither made any allegation nor has claimed any relief against him in the plaint. It was also alleged that allegation of the plaintiff regarding demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 30,000/- by defendant no. 4 is totally false and complaint made by the plaintiff to this effect to defendant no. 1 - Managing Director was found to be false and baseless on investigation.

The plaintiff by filing reply Annexure P/4 controverted the averments made in the application and reiterated the averments made in the plaint.

Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 12.6.2012 has allowed application Annexure P/3 filed by defendant no. 4 and has accordingly dropped the proceedings in the suit qua him. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the parties reiterated their respective versions as noticed hereinbefore.

I have carefully considered the matter. Averment of defendant no. 4 in his application that there is no allegation against him in the plaint nor any relief is claimed against him is patently and factually incorrect because perusal of plaint Annexure P/1 reveals that specific allegations have been made against defendant no. 4 inter alia in paragraph 15 of the plaint and relief has been claimed against all the defendants. Consequently, it cannot be said that there is no allegation against defendant no. 4 in the plaint or that no relief has been claimed against him in the plaint. Therefore, the plaint is not liable to rejection on this ground.

As regards departmental inquiry report into complaint made by plaintiff against defendant no. 4 regarding demand of bribe, the same cannot be said to be conclusive or binding on the court or the plaintiff. On the contrary, the said inquiry report, if any, may at best be piece of evidence in the case. It is for the court to determine the truthfulness or otherwise of the averments made by the plaintiff against defendant no. 4 in the plaint. The court has to adjudicate upon the same on trial of the case and claim of the plaintiff in this regard cannot be rejected summarily at the threshold without giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. At the risk of repetition, it may be highlighted that the claim of the plaintiff against defendant no. 4 cannot be rejected merely because defendant no. 4 was allegedly exonerated in the departmental inquiry into complaint made by the plaintiff regarding demand of bribe.

It is also worth mentioning that the application Annexure P/3 was moved long after framing of issues because according to counsel for the petitioner, issues were framed on 30.7.2009 whereas application Annexure P/3 is dated 10.6.2010. Consequently, when trial of the suit had commenced, there was no occasion for filing application Annexure P/3 for rejection of the plaint on the aforesaid grounds without trial of the suit. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that there is no sufficient ground for rejection of plaint against defendant no. 4 without trial of the suit. Impugned order passed by the trial court dropping the proceedings of the suit against defendant no. 4 is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 12.6.2012 passed by the trial court is set aside. Application Annexure P/3 filed by defendant no. 4 for rejection of plaint against him stands dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the suit which shall be decided in accordance with law after affording opportunity of leading evidence to both the parties. Defendant no. 4 shall be entitled to raise all his pleas including pleas taken in application Annexure P/3 at the time of final disposal of the suit.