Omission By Trial Court In Framing Issue On Maintainability Of Suit Does Not Limit Power Of Appellate Court To Decide If Suit Is Maintainable: J&K HC

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that if there is an omission on the part of the trial court to frame an issue on the maintainability of the suit under law, that does not limit the powers of the appellate court to decide the issue of maintainability.

The court added that the only requirement is that there should be no new facts that need to be pleaded and no new evidence to be led by the parties. The court held that if the evidence on file is sufficient, the appellate court can decide and determine the case finally.

A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed that the question before the court was whether, without seeking the declaration of termination, the trial Court can grant such relief, which plaintiff/respondent has nowhere sought. The cour,t after perusing the record, noticed that no issue on the maintainability of the suit had been framed by the trial Court with respect to this question.

The court said that at this juncture, a point arises whether this Court in Civil First Appeal can decide this issue of maintainability of the suit under law, when the trial Court has not framed such issue?

The court relied on R. Kandasamy v. T.R.K. Sarawathy, 2024, wherein the Supreme Court held that any failure or omission on the part of the trial court to frame an issue on the maintainability of a suit touching upon a jurisdictional fact by itself cannot take away the powers of the higher court to examine whether the jurisdictional fact did exist for the grant of relief as claimed, provided no new facts were required to be pleaded and no new evidence led.

The court said that in the instant case, as there are no new pleadings required to be taken and no evidence to be led by the parties, the court, by exercising its powers under Order 41 Rule 24 CPC, can finally determine the suit, notwithstanding the trial court's judgment.

Order 41 Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) states that if the evidence on record is sufficient, the appellate court can determine the suit finally and also enables the appellate court to pronounce judgment after reframing the issues, if necessary.

The court also, while answering an issue regarding the applicability of principles from the public law domain in private employment, stated that in cases of private employment, the onus is on the terminated employee to prove that there was a requirement for an inquiry or the framing of a formal charge sheet before the termination of the contract. The court decided this issue against the respondent/plaintiff.

BACKGROUND:

The respondent was working in Punjab National Bank as a manager. He was terminated from service. The trial court granted damages for wrongful termination without declaring the termination as wrongful. This was not framed as a preliminary objection by the defendant/petitioner. One of the key questions before the court was whether the appellate court has the power to determine the maintainability of the suit despite the omission by the trial court and whether termination without an inquiry was valid.

The court held that the omission of the trial court to frame the issue of maintainability does not reduce the powers of the appellate court to decide the issue, especially when the material on record was sufficient to finally decide it. The court also held that in cases of private employment, the onus is on the terminated employee to prove the requirement of an inquiry before termination, which the respondent failed to prove.

APPEARANCE:

Dheeraj Sharma, Advocate for Petitioners

V R Wazir, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Rajat Sudan, Advocate For Respondents

Case-title Punjab National Bank vs V K Gandotra, 2025, LiveLaw, (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Order