Plaint can be rejected by the High Court when the suit is not maintainable.

Aggrieved over the fair and decreetal order dated 211. 2006 passed by the District Munsif, Coimbatore in I.A.No.2235 of 2006 in O.S.No.2690 of 2006, CRP.No: 1729 of 2006 has been filed. While so, CRP.No:1730 of 2006 has been preferred to strike off the plaint itself on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The respondent originally filed O.S.No:756 of 2006 against 1)M/s.Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. rep. by its Executive President and 2) M/s.Bannari Amman Sugars Employees, Thrift and Credit Society rep. by its Secretary, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in anyway interfering with his day to day life and personal liberties either by causing danger to the person or otherwise under the guise of collecting money due to them. Thereafter the petitioner sent a letter dated 4. 2006 requesting the respondent to remit a sum of Rs.2,30,208.50 which has been received as advance by the respondent within seven days from the date of receipt of the letter. The respondent filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.23432 of 2006 and obtained an order of anticipatory bail on the ground that he resigned his job and gave consent letter to recover the misappropriated amount of Rs.2 lakhs by adjusting the same from the retirement benefits. The petitioner-company sent show cause notice to the respondent on 29. 2006, for which the respondent sent a detailed reply dated 29. 2006 stating that in order to get over the directions of the Honourable High Court as an after thought the petitioner has issued show cause notice seeking explanation from the ex-employee, who has already resigned from the service long back. The petitioner sent a show cause notice dated 29. 2006 directing the respondent to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for committing the misappropriation. The petitioner has also sent a letter on 110. 2006 to the respondent stating that it is true that on 11. 2005 the respondent has submitted a letter of resignation to the employer, but the same was not accepted and that the resignation would be considered only after the respondent clearing the charge of fraud played by him and for which the respondent has sent a reply dated 110. 2006 denying the allegations levelled against him and subsequent to that the petitioner sent a letter dated 111. 2006 stating that charges have been framed against him. Thereafter, the respondent filed the present suit O.S.No.2690 of 2006 for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner-defendant from holding any domestic enquiry. The respondent has also filed an application in I.A.No.2235 of 2006 praying for a temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from conducting any domestic enquiry till the disposal of the suit. The trial court granted ad-interim injunction for a limited period. Challenging the same, CRP.No:1729 of 2006 has been preferred and CRP.No:1730 of 2006 has been preferred stating that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the very suit.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a registered company under the Companies Act 1956 and the respondent was an Office Assistant, entrusted with duties like booking travel tickets for the Directors of the petitioner company, staff members and guests, for which, he was taking advances from the company from time to time and filing vouchers and on 11. 2005 he submitted his resignation, but since there was a proposal by the petitioner-company to frame charge against the respondent for misappropriation of funds, the resignation letter was not accepted and a reply was sent by the respondent on 13. 2006 to the petitioner stating that a sum of Rs.2,30,208.58 was taken by him as advance for official expenses on various dates but the sum was not entirely utilised for the sa