Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajat Masih vs Evervent Pvt. Ltd on 20 March, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
CR No.1018 of 2024 1 2024:PHHC:039657
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.1018 of 2024
Reserved on : 13.03.2024
Date of Decision: 20.03.2024
Rajat Masih ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Evervent Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present: Mr. Arnav Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 11.01.2024 dismissing the application filed by the defendant-
petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there was
no cause of action made out.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-
respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith interest @
18% per annum till realization on account of the loss which occurred to the
plaintiff-respondent because of the act done by the defendant-petitioner
herein as also for compensating the plaintiff-respondent for the loss of
reputation and professional client because of the act of the defendant-
petitioner. The defendant-petitioner filed the present application averring
therein that he was only a functional trainee and was yet to be appointed
upon the designation and hence he was not required to serve any notice
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.1018 of 2024 2 2024:PHHC:039657
before resigning from the portfolio assigned to him. It was further averred
that the plaint is frivolous and vexatious and hence deserved to be rejected.
The Trial Court vide the impugned order dismissed the application holding
inter-alia that whether the defendant-petitioner was required to give a 90
days' notice before leaving the job would be a matter of evidence.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend
that no cause of action is made out in the present case and that by way of
clever drafting the claim cannot be allowed to survive. In support of his
argument he has relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of RamisettyVenkatanna&Anr. vs.Nasyam Jamal Saheb &Ors.
[2023(2) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 444]; Rajendra Bajoria vs.
Hemant Kumar Jalan[2022 (12) SCC 641] and K. Akbar Ali vs. K.
Umar Khan &Ors.[2021 (14) SCC 51] and that of this Court in the case of
Rampal Sihag vs. Gurmeet Singh [2024 (1) RCR (Civil) 15].
4. Heard.
5. In the present case the letter dated 01.09.2022 which was filed
alongwith the plaint is the appointment letter of the defendant-petitioner.
Clause 7.1 of the appointment letter clearly states that employment with
Evervent (plaintiff-respondent herein) is subject to separation on 90th day of
resignation and that the defendant-petitioner could not waive the notice
period requirement in the event that he wishes to terminate his employment
with Evervent. It would be a matter of evidence to see whether Clause 7 of
the appointment letter would come into play after the period of probation or
would be applicable even during the period of probation. Hence, at this stage
the application has rightly been dismissed by the Trial Court. The reliance of
the learned counsel on the case of Ramisetty Venkatanna (supra) would be
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.1018 of 2024 3 2024:PHHC:039657
of no avail as in the present case learned counsel has not been able to show
that how the law laid down in the said case would be applicable to the facts
of the present case. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has not
been able to convince this Court that the present is a case of clever drafting.
The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner in
the case of Rajendra Bajoria (supra) would also be of no avail as in the
said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the Court finds that
none of the relief sought in the plaint can be granted to the plaintiff then
such a suit should be thrown out at the threshold. However, in the present
case it cannot be said that the relief sought by the plaintiff-respondent is not
made out at this stage. Hence, the defendant-petitioner can gain no
advantage from the said judgment. The reliance on the case of K. Akbar Ali
(supra) would also not be of any help as the same deals with a matter
wherein it was held that the Court has inherent power to see that frivolous or
vexatious litigation are not allowed to consume the time of the Court. In the
present case learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has not been able to
show that the present suit is vexatious or frivolous litigation. The facts in the
case of Rampal Sihag (supra) are totally different and hence the judgment
in the said case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. At this stage
the suit cannot be dismissed on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
as it would be a matter of evidence to see whether the clause regarding
notice of a period of 90 days would be applicable even during the probation
period.
6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
revision petition. The same being devoid of any merit is accordingly
dismissed. It is made clear that any observation made herein shall not be
integrity of this order/judgment
CR No.1018 of 2024 4 2024:PHHC:039657
treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Pending
applications, if any, are also disposed off.
integrity of this order/judgment
