Recently the Delhi High Court in the case of Hema Gusain Vs. India International and Others noted that a plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that the quantum of damages claimed in it cannot be granted under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The bench reaffirmed that Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC prohibits any partial rejection of the plaint. The plaint must be rejected in its whole or there can be no rejection at all. The court made these remarks in response to a request made on behalf of defendant number one, India International Centre, pursuant to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), asking that the plaint be rejected on the grounds that it failed to state a claim and that the lawsuit was legally untimely.
According to the plaint, the plaintiff began working for defendant number 1 as a personal assistant on January 1st, 1995. On April 30, 2017, the Plaintiff was chosen by the Search Committee, which had been established by Defendant No. 1, to serve as the Secretary (Designate).
The previous President of the defendant No. 1's tenure ended on June 23, 2017, and the defendant No. 2 was chosen to fill the vacancy. The defendant no. 1 issued an office order on July 29, 2017, directing that the plaintiff's employment as secretary be postponed. The plaintiff received a second notification from defendant No. 1 on August 8, 2017, stating that the plaintiff's salary and benefits will be reversed and that any excess money paid to the plaintiff would be reclaimed.
The plaintiff then brought a civil lawsuit before the Patiala House Court challenging the office order of July 29, 2017. The plaintiff submitted a letter of resignation on October 9, 2017, and the first defendant accepted it on October 10, 2017.
On October 11th, 2017, the plaintiff withdrew the aforementioned lawsuit. The plaintiff argued that because the defendants forced him to quit, it was not his choice to do so and was therefore an illegal termination.
The defendant no. 1 claimed that the plaintiff resigned from her position freely and that there was no evidence to support the claim that she was forced to do so when the application was filed under Order VII Rule XII. Additionally, it was claimed that the plaintiff had dismissed the initial lawsuit without requesting permission to bring a new lawsuit. As a result, the new lawsuit, which was founded on largely the same grounds, was dismissed.
On the contrary, the plaintiff had maintained that the prior lawsuit had been dismissed in simpliciter and that the merits of the case had not been decided. As a result, the res judicata doctrine will not be used.
Additionally, it was contended that the basis for bringing this lawsuit was wholly distinct from the basis for bringing the prior lawsuit. The addition that the Court's ability to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is extreme and must be specified strictly was made.
The Court held that in order to decide an application brought according to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court need only consider the allegations made in the plaint. The addition that the suit must be maintainable in light of the averments made in the plaint and the papers filed with the plaint limits the scope of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC just to that extent.
The Court noted that even if it were presumed that the plaintiff had no further claim to compensation once the notice period had passed, a trial would still be required to determine whether her termination was lawful or not and hence the application was dismissed.