A contract of personal service is not enforceable except for three exceptions, as per the provisions of Sections 14 & 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the District Judge, Sriganganagar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint as barred by law, has been rejected.

2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction, inter-alia, with the submissions that the plaintiff was granted appointment as Agency Manager - Channel Development Grade-II (Rural division) by order dated 15.05.2007; by order dated 26.12.2007, the plaintiff was made permanent on the post of Agency Manager; on 30.06.2008, the plaintiff was given promotion w.e.f. 15.05.2008 as Sales Manager - Rural Channel Development Grade-Ill. It was indicated that service contract was executed between the plaintiff and defendants, whereby it was, inter-alia, provided that if the defendant was to terminate the services of the plaintiff, it was required to give a two months' prior notice or two months' salary. It was claimed that the plaintiff was performing his duties to the best of his abilities and was fulfilling all the targets and he was given incentive also on account of his performance. It was alleged that due to influence of one Tarun Singh (ARM), the plaintiff was transferred from Sriganganagar to Suratgarh Branch; he was again transferred from Suratgarh to Sriganganagar in June, 2010, whereafter it was alleged that the petitioner was not taken back on duty after he went on leave based on an oral order. It was alleged that the plaintiff was not taken back on duty since July, 2010.

3. Based on the above averments, following reliefs were sought:-

4. Written statement was filed by the defendant denying the averments made in the plaint. It was, inter-alia, indicated that the services of the plaintiff were terminated by order dated 17.06.2010 and that pursuant thereto, the plaintiff had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum in relation to his amount of Provident Fund, wherein also, the fact of termination of his services was indicated. Several counter allegations were made in the written statement pertaining to plaintiff's conduct.

5. Based on the averments of the parties, the trial court framed seven issues.

6. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed application under Order VII, Rule ll(d) CPC, inter-alia, claiming that the relief claimed in the suit was barred under the provisions of Sections 14 & 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('the Act') and therefore, the plaint be rejected.

7. The plaintiff filed reply to the application contesting the same and claiming that the suit as filed was maintainable.

8. The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that as to whether the performance of the plaintiff was as per the parameters or not and whether his services were rightly terminated or not, were the issues which required evidence and therefore, at the stage of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, it cannot be said that the suit was not of the jurisdiction of the court and consequently, rejected the application with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court fell in error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11(d) CPC. Submissions were made that a bare perusal of the averments made in the plaint and the relief claimed it is apparent that the plaintiff was seeking to enforce a contract of service, which is specifically barred under Section 14 r/w Section 41(e) of the Act and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

10. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi : (2004)3 SCC 172.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that not all suits are barred and that the civil court has the jurisdiction to deal with the case of present nature and as such, the trial court was justified in rejectin