V K CHANDRASAKRAN Vs. MANGLESH KUMAR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the petitioners, and opposite party nos.2 and 3 who are functionaries of the petitioner Company and have been impleaded as defendants in the suit. In other words, the petitioners and opposite party nos.2 and 3 represent a common cause. This application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendants of Title Suit No.76 of 2001 (Mangalesh Kumar Sinha vs. Satish Reddy & others), and is directed against the order 30.07.2007, whereby the learned Subordinate Judge VI, Gaya, has held that the preliminary objection raised by the defendants as to the maintainability of the suit shall be considered at the time of final disposal of the suit, and has indeed been incorporated in the nine issues framed by the learned trial court.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this civil revision application may be indicated. Opposite party no.1 herein has instituted the suit for the following reliefs: 9. That the plaintiff came to know that defendant no.4 is interested in accommodating his own choices man obviously with a view to derive illegal gain and as such with this notice he started efforts to dislodge the plaintiff from service by abusing his power and position in the hierarchy of the management. 10. That when the plaintiff did not obey the verbal order of the defendant no.4 he started victimizing the plaintiff by withdrawing the H.Q. from Gaya City and shifted the Head quarter in Jamshedpur City which is a clear case of malafide intention to any how dislodge the plaintiff from his post.

(3.) IT is evident on a perusal of the plaint that the same challenges the plaintiff?s transfer from Gaya to a different place, and his failure to carry out the transfer order led to his dismissal from service. IT is the plaintiff?s further case that his services have been dispensed with without initiating a departmental proceeding. We have no manner of doubt that these are common law rights which do not exclusively emanate from a specialized enactment like the 1976 Act. We are, therefore, of the view that the present case is covered by clause (2) of paragraph 23 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. K.S. Wadke (supra), reproduced hereinabove.