1. - In this revision petition filed under section 115, C.P.C., the petitioner-defendants are challenging validity of order dated 8.4.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Jodhpur in Original Suit No. 23/2010 filed by the respondent-plaintiff for mandatory and declaratory injunction.

2. As per facts of the case, in the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent for mandatory and declaratory injunction against the petitioner-defendants to challenge the letter dated 9.3.2010, by which, the petitioner Bank decided to put the services of the respondent-plaintiff to an end.

3. In the suit an application under Order 7 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code was filed by the petitioner-defendant with the prayer that suit is barred by law on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent is in private employment which normally would be governed by terms of the contract between the parties, therefore, the relief sought in the suit cannot be granted by the civil Court as the suit for enforcing the contract of personal service is clearly barred under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The application filed by the petitioner-defendants was rejected FLR(1)-42 vide, order dated 8.4.2010. Instant revision petition has been filed for challenging the said order dated 8.4.2010.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Shri R.K. Thanvi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argued that order impugned deserves to be quashed solely on the ground that it is a case of enforcement of contract and relief sought in the suit cannot be granted by the civil Court because in the suit the petitioner has prayed for enforcing the terms and conditions of contract of personal service which is clearly barred under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is also submitted that the trial Court has committed a grave illegality in exercising its jurisdiction to try the suit because Court has failed to appreciate that case of the plaintiff-respondent is not related to any service rules framed under Article 309 or 311(2) of the Constitution of India nor there is any relation of any statutory rules. In fact, the services of the respondent-plaintiff are regulated by personal service contract, therefore, the suit is barred under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, the order impugned may be quashed and application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code may be allowed.

5. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per the judgment in Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi, 2004 (100) FLR 797 (SC) : 2004 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 519 : (2004) 3 SCC 172 the suit is not maintainable; but, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial Court while deciding application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C., therefore, the order impugned may be quashed and application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code may be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that reasons given by the trial Court for rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code do not require any interference because admittedly the respondent-plaintiff was working on the post of Manager and his services were terminated without following procedure laid down in the rules for which no other remedy is available except the civil suit because the post of manager does not fall under the definition of workman as per the Industrial Disputes Act; so also, the order of termination of services cannot be challenged by way of filing writ petition before this Court because the petitioner-defendant Bank is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be called to be made under section 14(1) of the. Specific Relief Act, 1963, therefore, It cannot be said that any error has been committed by the trial Court. Further, learned Counsel for the respondent invited my attention towards judgment R