Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001544

CS(OS) 324/2018 Page 1 of 13

$~J-1

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 19.12.2022

%

Judgment pronounced on: 02.03.2023

+

CS(OS) 324/2018

HITESH GOLA

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Ms. Manali Singhal, Mr. Santosh

Sachin, Ms. Aanchal Kapoor and Mr. Deepak

Singh Rawat, Advocates.

versus

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND, INDIA (RBS) & ORS.

..... Defendants

Through:

Ms. Pallavi Singh Rao and

Mr.Soumya Dasgupta, Advocates for D-1.

Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advocate for D-2.

Mr. Mayank Mikhail Mukherjee and Mr.Nitish

Chaudhary, Advocates for D-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

JUDGMENT

SACHIN DATTA, J.

I.A. No. 2227/2022 (for amendment of plaint) and I.A. No. 8358/2022 (for

amendment of plaint)

1.

These are applications under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking amendment of the plaint.

2.

The prayers sought in the suit, as originally filed, are as under:-

“(A)

Digitally Signed

By:RADHA BISHT

Signing Date:02.03.2023

17:44:26

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001544

CS(OS) 324/2018 Page 2 of 13

proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

3.

The suit was occasioned on account of an accident in the lift at office

premises of defendant no.1 (where the plaintiff was employed), which is stated

to have resulted in serious spinal injuries to the plaintiff.

4.

Along with the suit the plaintiff filed an I.A. No. 8881/2018 under Order

XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, wherein he sought certain interim orders including,

inter alia, that the defendant no. 1 be restrained from terminating the plaintiff’s

services during the pendency of the present suit and also seeking a direction

that the defendant no. 1 be directed to give medical benefits to the plaintiff. In

the said I.A. No. 8881/2018, an interim order dated 11.07.2019 came to be

passed containing the following direction:-

terminated.”

5.

The aforesaid I.A. No. 8881/2018 was disposed of on 27.07.2018, in the

following terms:-

Digitally Signed

By:RADHA BISHT

Signing Date:02.03.2023

17:44:26

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001544

CS(OS) 324/2018 Page 3 of 13

record.”

6.

Despite the aforesaid order, the defendant no. 1 terminated the services

of the plaintiff. This impelled the plaintiff to file I.A. No. 4962/2019 under

Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC seeking initiation of contempt proceedings

against the defendant no. 1 and seeking withdrawal of the termination notice

dated 29.03.2019 (the ‘first termination’). Vide order dated 04.04.2019, passed

in the aforesaid I.A. 4962/2019, it was directed as under:-

“12. Since Defendant No.1 had expressed its intention not to terminate the Plaintiff

…

issued by the Defendant no. 1 bank to the Plaintiff, shall remain stayed.”

7.

In an appeal [FAO (OS) No. 74/2019] filed against the aforesaid order

dated 04.04.2019, a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated

15.04.2019 stayed the operation of the aforesaid order. The said FAO(OS)

Digitally Signed

By:RADHA BISHT

Signing Date:02.03.2023

17:44:26

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001544

CS(OS) 324/2018 Page 4 of 13

74/2019 was ultimately disposed of by the Division Bench on 20.09.2021 in

the following terms:-

8.

It can be seen that vide the aforesaid order dated 20.09.2021, the

Division Bench expressly reserved the right of the respondent therein (i.e., the

plaintiff herein) to: