IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2877 OF 2025 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

DR.DEBAJYOTHI MANDAL SON OF LATE DR.PRABODH KUMAR MANDAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT SUN CITY APARTMENTS FLAT NO.1001, BLOCK 17 IBBALURU SARJAPUR OUTER RING ROAD BENGALURU - 560 102 …APPELLANT (BY SRI.DR.DEBAJYOTHI MANDAL, APPELLANT - PARTY-IN-PERSON)

AND:

FORTIS HOSPITAL LIMITED NO.14, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052.

REPRESENTED BY

1. SRI.CHANDRASEKHAR R FACILITY DIRECTOR

2. DR.VIVEKANAND JAWALI CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.07.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN O.S.NO.6111/2023 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-02), BENGALURU CITY., ALLOWING THE IA NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULES 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.01.2026, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

CAV JUDGMENT

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of party-in-person and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, this matter is heard and reserved for judgment.

2. The captioned appeal is directed against the order dated 04.07.2025 passed in O.S.No.6111/2023 by the trial Court on I.A.No.3 filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code thereby rejecting the plaint.

3. For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

4. Facts leading to the case are as under;

The plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking a direction to the defendant–Hospital to reinstate him into service and to restore all attendant monetary benefits by way of a mandatory injunction, together with full back wages and consequential benefits.

5. The plaintiff, in the plaint, asserts that he is a qualified Cardiothoracic Surgeon with over six years of professional experience, having obtained a Post-Graduate M.S.Degree in General Surgery, and that he was felicitated by the American College of Cardiology in the year 2020. It is his specific case that the defendant–Hospital, represented by its Facility Director, Mr. Anand Angadi, and its Chairman, Dr. Vivekanand Jawali, being fully aware of his professional credentials and experience, held several rounds of discussions with him. Consequent upon such deliberations, the defendant offered the plaintiff engagement as a Consultant in Cardiothoracic Surgery, pursuant to which an employment contract-cum- appointment letter came to be executed by both parties on

26.05.2023.

6. The gist of the plaintiff’s grievance is the premature termination of his engagement, which, according to him, is in breach of the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract. The plaintiff contends that the unilateral termination of his services is contrary to Clause No.11 of the contract and amounts to rescission of contractual obligations without adherence to the agreed procedure. It is further alleged that the manner in which the termination was effected caused humiliation and injury to his professional standing, thereby necessitating institution of the present suit.

7. The defendant–Hospital, represented by its Facility Director and Chairman, upon service of summons, entered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Sections 9 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. The principal contention urged therein is that, even assuming the plaint averments to be true in their entirety, the reliefs sought are barred by law, inasmuch as the contract in question is one of personal service, determinable in nature, and expressly not an employment contract, and therefore incapable of enforcemen