The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court's jurisdiction to grant relief is barred by necessary implication in cases not covered by specific statutes, and the remedy of the employee in the case of an illegal termination of service is to sue for damages.

( 1 ) REJECTION of an application to reject the plaint under Order vii, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is challenged by the defendant in "civil Revision Petition No. 1053 of 1993. The defendant is a Bank in the private sector. Plaintiff (respondent) is a General Manager in the said Bank. Plaint alleges that the plaintiff received a memo dated 3-3-1993 informing him that the board of Directors by its resolution No. 63 dated 2-3-1993 had resolved to suspend him on the ground of insubordination and therefore pending disposal of the domestic enquiry into the charge-sheet dated 8-1-1993 he was to be kept under suspension. This resolution is attacked as vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness and lack of competence. The reliefs sought for in the suit read as follows:-" (A)FOR a declaration that the resolution No. 63 passed by the Board of the defendant Bank suspending the plaintiff with mala fide intention and motivated and hence it is null and void and illegal and consequently for a permanent injunction restraining the Bank from acting upon the said resolution. (B) For a declaration that the disciplinary enquiry now pending against the plaintiff on charge of bigamy or refusal to acknowledge to sign the delivery register on 6-1-1993 and consequential alleged insubordination is vitiated, null and void and consequently for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding with the said enquiry. "the basic question is whether such a suit is maintainable? the learned Munsiff held that there is no particular legal bar against the maintainability of the suit as stated in Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the question of the maintainability of the suit on other grounds "is a matter to be decided at the time of the disposal of the main suit. " according to the learned Munsiff legal bar contemplated by order VII, Rule ll (d), CPC is a bar referred to in such legal provisions like Section 80, CPC or the law of limitation.

( 2 ) THE above view assumes that Order VII, Rule 11, CPC is exhaustive of the circumstances in which a plaint has to be rejected. But, Order VII, Rule 11, CPC is held to be not exhaustive of the grounds to reject a plaint - Radha Kishen v wali Mohammed. If the court's jurisdiction is not available to grant the reliefs sought for in the plaint on the basis of the entire plaint averments considered as a whole, it will be, technically, a case of non-availability of a cause of action for the civil suit. Even otherwise, an inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain the suit, necessarily includes a jurisdiction in the court to reject the plaint, at the threshold of the proceedings. When a plaint is presented, court has to assume all the allegations made in the plaint as correct and if on that basis, it is realised that the court cannot grant the relief sought for in the plaint, it will be a futile exercise to keep the suit pending so as to undergo the formalities of a trial, before facing a dismissal. It is well-known that the allegations made in the plaint decide the forum and jurisdiction does not depend upon the defence taken by the defendant in a written statement - Abdulla Bin All and others v Galappa and Others. Whether the court should postpone its decision regarding maintainability of the suit, depends on the facts of the case. If the entire plaint averments are accepted and with reference to them the relief or reliefs prayed for in the plaint cannot be granted by the Civil Court, it will not be in the interest of public to keep alive such a suit. Further, keeping such a suit pending will lead to unnecessary harassment of the defendant; it will be permitting the abuse of the process of the court at the behest of a plaintiff who is not entitled to any relief, ultimately. In such a situation, as this, the approach to be adopted is to consider the maintainability of the suit at the earliest. In T. Arivandandam v t. V. Satyapal and Another, the Supreme Court observe