IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is to be exercised cautiously, and the test for determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action is whether a decree would be passed based on the averments made in the plaint.

JUDGMENT

Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.

1. The present Appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 06.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 10179/2021 in CS (OS) No. 251 of 2020 [hereinafter called "Impugned Order"]. By the Impugned Order, the Appellant/Defendant No.1's Application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as "CPC"] seeking rejection of the Plaint filed by the Appellant/Defendant No.1 [hereinafter for ease of reference referred to as "IIC"] was dismissed.

2. A suit for recovery of damages and compensation for wrongful termination of service by IIC was filed before the learned Single Judge by Respondent No.1/Plaintiff [hereinafter for ease of reference referred to as "HEMA"] who was employed with IIC for more than two decades was `forced to resign from her employment' and the forced resignation falls within the category of illegal termination. HEMA has, thus, prayed for a decree of recovery of damages for her dismissal from service and for interests and costs. The prayers made in the Plaint read:

"a) Pass a Judgment and Decree in favour of the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,02,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore and Two Lakh Only) against the Defendants, jointly and severally, along with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum, till the date of full realization of entire amount, for her wrongful dismissal from service; and/or

b) Pass a Judgment and Decree in favour of the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) against the Defendants towards harassment and mental agony and Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only) towards her Defamation on account of her illegal and arbitrary termination; and/or

c) Cost of the suit may be awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants;..."

3. Along with the Plaint, HEMA filed documents in support of her case. IIC filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC wherein it was prayed that the plaint filed by HEMA in CS (OS) No. 251 of 2020 [hereinafter referred to as "Plaint"] be rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

3.1. It was contended in the Application that the Plaint filed by HEMA is barred by law in as much as the relief sought is untenable. It is further stated in the Application that the Plaint does not disclose any cause of action, as HEMA had voluntarily resigned and it is only in the case of a wrongful termination that compensation by way of damages is payable. Since, the resignation was voluntary, the damages are not due or payable by IIC.

3.2. Lastly, it was stated in the Application that HEMA had earlier filed a suit [Civil Suit No. 1040 of 2017] before Patiala House Courts [hereinafter referred to as "1st Suit"] arising out of substantially the same facts and had unconditionally withdrawn the same. Thus, the Plaint filed before the learned Single Judge i.e., CS (OS) 251 of 2020 [hereinafter referred to as "2nd Suit"] is not maintainable being `hit' by the provisions of Order XXIII CPC.

4. By the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge after noting the basic facts of the case and submissions of both parties, directed dismissal of the Application, finding that the case was not a fit one for exercise of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

5. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, this Appeal has been filed.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of IIC has submitted that HEMA was in service of IIC, and her contract of service provided that her service was terminable on three months' notice. It is in pursuance thereof that on 09.10.2017, HEMA voluntarily resigned, and her resignation was accepted immediately, her notice period waived and all dues were settled. Since this was a voluntary resignation and not a forced resignation it will not amount to illegal termination. Thus, no damages were payable by IIC.

6.1. Relying on the judgments of ITC Vs DRAT, (1998) 2 SCC 70 and Dahiben vs Arvind Bhai Kalyanji, (2020) 7 SCC 366, it was contended that the clever drafting