AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Kumar, J.—This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 7th November, 2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana allowing the application of the defendant-respondents filed u/s 10 read with Section 151 of the objection that the civil suit No. 407 dated 10th October, 2001 is liable to be stayed in so far as a claim for subsistence allowance has been made because the same claim is subject matter of the previous suit and the issue is directly and substantially raised in that suit. Sustaining the objection, the Civil Judge has recorded the following order:
"I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties. Counsel for the defendant has placed on record copy of plaint and written statement filed in the previous suit pending in the Court of Shri Rajesh Ahluwalia, C.J.J.D., Ludhiana. Therefore, there is no dispute as to the pendency of the previous suit as well as the relief claimed therein as narrated by the defendant in his application? The present suit has been filed claiming declaration plaintiff is entitled to subsistence allowance and medical reimbursement for plaintiff and his wife.
In the present suit plaintiff claims subsistence allowance, which means he is admitting himself under suspension. But in the previous suit he has claimed the salary for the full period treating him on sick leave. Both these claims are inter connected and inter dependent. Only either one of them could be admitted to the plaintiff. Hence, the claim of subsistence allowance as made in the present suit is directly and substantially in issue in previous suit. The present suit to that extent needs to be stayed to avoid multiplicity and conflict of findings. The findings of the previous suit shall also effective as res judicata in this regard.
However, the claim for medical reimbursement is different from the claim of salary or from the subsistence allowance. It is not to be received by the plaintiff in a routine manner. Medical reimbursement is allowed only when a person is suffering from ailment has incurred expenses and is entitled to claim from his employer. Therefore, the claim for medical reimbursement is not directly substantially in issue in the previous suit hence the claim of the plaintiff to that extent is maintainable. As a result of my discussion above, the application is partly allowed. Accordingly, adjourned to 8th November, 2001 for written statement and reply and for consideration."
I have heard Shri B.N. Sehgal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and have perused the record with his assistance.
Shri Sehgal has argued that in the earlier suit no prayer for subsistence allowance has been made which has been made in the subsequent suit.
Having heard learned counsel and perusing the prayer made in the earlier suit, I am of the considered opinion that in the earlier suit the prayer has been so broadly drafted that it would include the claim of subsistence allowance. The prayer clause reads as under:-
"Alongwith a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to treat the period of service of the plaintiff w.e.f. 20th November, 1996 till he is declared medically fit by the doctors treating him a sick leave period and he be paid salary for that period as per rules as given in the Personal Manual of the defendant Corporation after deducting his income tax and other necessary remittances and he be paid all arrears alongwith compound interest @ 18% p.a. alongwith any other additional or alternative relief to which he is found entitled to plaintiff."
Therefore, I do not find any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order dated 7th November, 2001 passed by the civil Judge warranting interference of this Court u/s 115 of the Code.
For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed.