$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 10.11.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 03.12.2025 + RFA(OS) 87/2019 RITA SOLOMON & ORS (N K DHENISH & ORS.)

.....Appellants Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Garg, Ms.

Preety Makkar, Mr. Shrutanjaya Bharadwaj, Mr. Aashish Dutta, Mr. Aman Abbi, Mr. Vivek Sura, Advs.

versus THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jaiveer Shergill, Mr.

Gaurav Gupta, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The issue that arises for consideration in the present Appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] on the sole ground that the suit did not contain any cause of action as pleaded. The rejection is assailed on the principal ground that the learned Single Judge misconstrued and misapplied the law relating to rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, by subsuming the non-existence of cause of action within non-disclosure and conducting a premature appraisal of facts and merits.

2. The present Appeal challenges the order dated 01.05.2019 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the plaint instituted by the Appellants - Indian- origin employees of the Embassy of Italy in New Delhi claiming discrimination in payment of salary/pay in violation of Italian Presidential Decree No.103 of 2000 [hereinafter referred to as „Presidential Decree‟] was summarily rejected. The suit was dismissed despite no objections on limitation, jurisdiction, or other bars, confining the controversy solely to the scope and correctness of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC application.

3. The question that arises before this Court is “Whether the Ld. Single judge was right in law to give a finding on a question of fact while adjudicating an application for rejection of plaint.”

FACTUAL MATRIX AND BACKGROUND

4. The Appellants, comprising locally recruited employees of Indian origin, were engaged by the Embassy of Italy in New Delhi from as early as 1997, with their appointments and contracts governed by the Presidential Decree, which expressly incorporated provisions for equal remuneration among employees belonging to the same homogeneous category.

5. From the initial years of employment, the Appellants began to observe and experience a pronounced disparity in salary and service benefits as compared to their Italian-origin colleagues recruited locally for substantially similar roles. Despite fulfilling identical eligibility requirements- including continuous residency in India, the Indian-

origin employees received significantly lower pay and fewer ancillary benefits.

6. Between 2001 and 2012, the Appellants took repeated steps to highlight and resolve the alleged discrimination, including concerted representations to the Italian Embassy, correspondence with authorities in Rome, and engagement with the Ministry of External Affairs of India. During this period, the Italian Government made assurances that the disparity would be rectified, but the pay gap and differential benefits persisted unabated across subsequent contract renewals and new appointments.

7. Due to persistent inaction by the Respondents, the Appellants resorted to legal remedies. After protracted correspondence and a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, the Appellants obtained the consent mandated under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the Government of India by January 2013, enabling them to institute civil proceedings against the foreign state.

8. The Appellants filed a civil suit being CS(OS) 1352/2013 before this Court seeking declarations that the Respondents‟ actions contravened Article 157 of the Presidential Decree and constituted employment discrimination, as well as a direction for arrears of approximately Rs.2.11 crore and parity in pay and benefits.

9. The Embas