[Order VII Rule 11 CPC] Quantum Of Damages Can Only Be Decided After Trial, Not Ground To Reject Plaint: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the basis that the quantum of damages claimed in it cannot be granted.

Justice Amit Bansal observed that quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff can only be decided after the trial. Therefore, a trial would be necessary and so, the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis that the quantum of damages claimed in the plaint cannot be granted. 

The bench also reiterated that there cannot be any partial rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It added that either the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or there can be no rejection at all.

The Court made the observations while dismissing an application filed on behalf of the defendant no.1, India International Centre, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action and that the suit was barred by law.

The plaint stated that the plaintiff had joined the defendant no.1 on 1st January, 1995 as a Personal Assistant. On 30th April, 2017, the plaintiff was appointed as the Secretary (Designate) on the basis of selection done by the Search Committee appointed by the defendant no.1.

On 23rd June, 2017, the term of the previous President of the defendant no.1 got over and the defendant no.2 was appointed as the next President.

On 29th July, 2017, an Office Order was issued by the defendant no.1 that appointment of the plaintiff as Secretary be kept in abeyance. On 8th August, 2017, the plaintiff received another notice from the defendant no.1 stating that the salary and perks of the plaintiff would be reversed and the excess amount paid to the plaintiff would be recovered.

A Civil Suit was then filed by the plaintiff before the Patiala House Courts, impugning the office order dated 29th July, 2017. On 9th October, 2017, the plaintiff issued a resignation letter, which was accepted by the defendant no.1 on 10th October, 2017.

On 11th October, 2017, the aforesaid suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff. It was the contention of the plaintiff that the resignation was not voluntary and was forced upon the plaintiff by the defendants and therefore, amounted to illegal termination.

While filing the application under Order VII Rule XII, the defendant no. 1 argued that the plaintiff had voluntarily resigned from her service and that there was nothing to suggest that the plaintiff was forced to resign.

It was also submitted that the plaintiff had withdrawn the first suit without seeking liberty to file a fresh suit. Therefore, the fresh suit, which was based on substantially the same pleadings, was barred.

On the other hand, the plaintiff had argued that the previous suit filed was simplicitor withdrawn and there was no adjudication on merits. Therefore, the principle of res judicata will not apply.

It was also argued that the cause of action for filing the suit was entirely different from the cause of action for filing the previous suit. It was added that the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic power conferred on the Court and therefore, it has to be strictly expressed.

Hearing the parties, the Court observed thus:

"…. taking into account that the previous suit was not decided on merits, but was withdrawn by the plaintiff, the plea of res judicata would be beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of the defendant no.1 that the present suit is not be maintainable."

The Court was of the view that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court has to only look at the averments made in the plaint. It was added that the scope of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is limited only to the extent whether or not in terms of averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint, the suit is maintainable.

"In view of the aforesaid averments made in the plaint, I do not think this is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the claim," the Court said.

The Court observed that even if it is assumed that the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation beyond the notice period, a trial would be necessary to determine whether she was unlawfully terminated or not.

"So, the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis that the quantum of damages claimed in the plaint cannot be granted," the Court said.

Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Case Title: HEMA GUSAIN v. INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 632

Click Here To Read Order