SRI. GOWTHAM vs KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.539 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)


BETWEEN:

SRI. GOWTHAM,
S/O LATE SEVYA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1846, 7TH BLOCK,
SIR M.V. LAYOUT,
VISHVANEEDAM POST,
NEAR MUDDAIAHNAPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 091.

…APPELLANT












Digitally
signed by N
UMA
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY MISS. AVANI CHOKSHI., ADVOCATE)


AND:

1. KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,
PB NO.599, MAHAVEERA CIRCLE,
KANKANADY - 575 002,
MANGALURU,

REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


BENGALURU - 560 093.

2.
THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,
H.O MANGALURU.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHYAMA PRASADA K.V., ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2024 PASSED ON I.A. I IN
OS.NO.1964/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING
THE I.A.NO.I FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (d) OF CPC,
FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


ORAL JUDGMENT
This regular first appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff
calling in question the order passed on I.A.No.1 filed under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC in O.S.No.1964/2022 on the file of
the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru,
whereby the plaint is rejected by allowing application-I.A.No.1.
2. Heard Ms. Avani Chokshi, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri. Shyama Prasada.K.V., learned counsel for the
respondents.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.
4. The plaintiff has filed a suit seeking following
reliefs:
A) Pass the judgment and decree of declaration declaring
that the order bearing No.HO/HR &
IR/D/O/62014/12661/2015-16 dated: 03.03.2016 passed
by the defendant No.2 and the order baring No.HR &
IR/D/O/62014/3105/2016-17 dated: 21.07.2016 passed
by defendant No.1 as null and void, illegal and not
binding on the plaintiff, in the interest of justice.
B) Pass a judgment and decree of Mandatory Injunction
directing the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff into the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


service with all consequential service benefits for which
the plaintiff is entitled, in the interest of justice.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was appointed
as Agricultural Field Officer in the year 1997 in the defendant's
Bank and firstly he was promoted as Manager and later on he
was promoted to the post of Senior Manager. The plaintiff has
alleged that when he was serving as Regional Officer at
Bengaluru, the defendants’ Bank received complaints from
customers that the plaintiff demanded gratification from each
customer in exchange for sanctioning their loans. Based on
these complaints, the defendants issued a charge memo dated
31.01.2014. The plaintiff contended that the said charge memo
is defective and no proper enquiry is conducted and the
departmental enquiry culminated in an order of termination.
Therefore, termination of the plaintiff is illegal and prays to
declare the said termination as null and void. Thus, the suit is
filed seeking the above reliefs:
6. The defendants have appeared and filed their
written statement and also an application under Order VII Rule
11(d) of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint. It is contended

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


that the Civil Court does not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate
the legality of the orders passed in a departmental enquiry.
Therefore, challenging the order of termination after conducting
departmental enquiry is not correct as Civil Court does not have
jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute pertaining to the employer
and employee relationship governed by service law principles.
Therefore, filed an application-I.A.No.1 for rejection of
the plaint.
7. The plaintiff has filed an objection to the said
application-I.A.No.1, contending that initially the plaintiff has
filed W.P.No.11869/2017 before this Court, which was dismissed
as not maintainable on the ground that defendant No.1 is not a
nationalized bank. Thus, it is not a State. Thereafter, the plaintiff
has preferred an appeal challenging the dismissal of the writ
petition in W.A.No.67/2021 but the said appeal was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to the plaintiff to avail remedies available
under the law. Therefore, pursuant to the liberty granted, the
plaintiff has filed the suit before the Civil Court and thus
submitted that the suit is maintainable.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


8. The trial Court after hearing on an application in
I.A.No.1 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, allowed the
application and rejected the plaint. The trial Court assigned the
reasons that the dispute is with regard to contract of service
between employer and employee. Therefore, this cannot be
adjudicated in the suit and thus the suit is not maintainable.
It is observed by the trial Court that the contract of personal
service cannot ordinarily be enforced and the Civil Court is not
empowered to give a declaration that the contract of service
subsists and the employee even after having been removed
from service cannot deemed to be in service against the will and
consent of the employer. Therefore, by following the judgments
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, discussed in the impugned order,
has rejected the plaint.
9. Assailing the legality of the order passed by the trial
Court rejecting the plaint, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal
by raising various grounds and learned counsel for the
appellant-plaintiff in consonance with the grounds raised,
submitted that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on
the suit of damages to be claimed by the plaintiff. It is

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


submitted that the trial Court has not considered this aspect
properly and correctly. Further, he submits that the trial Court
on which judgments placed its reliance, are having different
factual matrix and are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the trial Court is
not correct in placing reliance on the judgments discussed in the
impugned order. Learned counsel further submits that the
plaintiff has initially filed writ petition before this Court
challenging his termination from service but this Court has
dismissed the said writ petition as not maintainable on the
ground that defendant No.1 is not a nationalized bank/State. As
against the said order, writ appeal was preferred but the same
was withdrawn with liberty to approach competent court of law.
Accordingly, the suit is filed before the Civil Court and the Civil
Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the rights of the plaintiff
for damages. Therefore, before claiming damages, inevitably
the plaintiff shall have to seek declaration of his illegal
termination. Therefore, in this regard, suit is maintainable.
Further, learned counsel submits that the plaintiff has not asked
for damages in the suit but as per Section 40 of the Specific

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


Relief Act, 1963, the damages can be claimed at any stage of
proceedings. Therefore, he seeks leave of this Court to make
amendment to the plaint in the prayer column and prays to
allow the appeal and remand the case to the trial Court for
consideration on merits in accordance with law.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents-defendants submitted that the suit is not
maintainable and filing of the suit in case of enforcement of
private contracts between employer and employee is not
maintainable and plaintiff has a remedy elsewhere but not filing
the suit. Further submitted that the plaintiff has not sought for
relief of damages. Therefore, when the plaintiff has not sought
for prayer of damages then the suit is not maintainable and this
is correctly held by the trial Court. Hence, prays for dismissal of
the appeal.
11. Having heard the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials placed on
record, the following points would arise for consideration:

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


1) Whether under the facts and circumstances involved in
the case, the suit filed by the plaintiff challenging his
termination from service is maintainable?
2) Whether under the facts and circumstances involved in
the case, the defendants makes out a case that the
suit is not maintainable as the private contract of
personal service with regard to employer and
employee is not enforceable?
3) Whether under the facts and circumstances involved in
the case, the order passed on I.A.No.1 filed under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, requires interference of
this Court?

12. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was
appointed as an Agricultural Field Officer in the defendant’s
Bank. Thereafter, he was promoted as Manager and then as
Senior Manager. When he was serving as Regional Officer at
Bengaluru, he was terminated from service on certain
allegations. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that the
defendants issued a charge memo, which does not contain
specific particulars of imputation, a list of witnesses and
supporting documents and thus the departmental enquiry is not
in accordance with law. Hence, submitted that the order of
termination is illegal. Therefore, filed suit for declaration and

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


mandatory injunction. The prayer of mandatory injunction is as
follows:
“b) Pass a judgment and decree of Mandatory
Injunction directing the defendants to reinstate the
plaintiff into the service with all consequential
service benefits for which the plaintiff is entitled, in
the interest of justice.”

13. During the course of argument, it is submitted that
the plaintiff has crossed the age of 60 years and thus he is not
entitled for reinstatement and therefore, prayer (b) in the plaint
has become infructuous.
14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the
plaintiff is entitled for damages, therefore he filed the suit. He
submits that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to
declare that the order of termination is illegal and for
reinstatement. Sofaras prayer with regard to reinstatement is
concerned, the same has become infructuous. Learned counsel
further submits that when the plaintiff can maintain suit for
claiming damages, the relief sought at prayer (a) is
maintainable. Therefore, submitted that though in the plaint
originally filed, the plaintiff had not sought for relief of damages

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


but as per Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act, at any stage of
proceedings, the plaintiff can claim the relief of damages.
Therefore, submits that the plaintiff is intending to make prayer
of amendment before the trial Court and hence also prayed in
this appeal to seek permission to file an application for
amendment of plaint seeking the damages.
15. The trial Court has placed reliance on the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are
Karnataka Bank Vs. T. Gopalakrishna Rao reported in ILR
1994 KAR 230 and Sirsi Municipality by its President,
Sirsi Vs. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis reported in AIR 1973
SC 855 , the facts and circumstances in those cases were that
the plaintiffs are workmen. Therefore, in those cases, the facts
was that there was an employer and workmen relationship.
Therefore, under these circumstances, it was held that the suit
before the Civil Court is not maintainable as the plaintiffs had
remedy to approach either Tribunal or Labour Court. Under
these circumstances, it was held in the judgments that suit was
not maintainable. But considering the facts of the present
case, the plaintiff is not workman. The plaintiff at the time of

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


his termination from service, was working as Regional Officer in
the defendant's Bank. Therefore, the plaintiff was not workman
so as to adjudicate his grievances either before the Labour
Court or Tribunal. Thus, the trial Court has wrongly observed
that the above said judgments are applicable to the present
case. Therefore, the trial Court has committed an error in
rejecting the plaint of the plaintiff.
16. This Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Vs. T.
Gopalakrishna Rao reported in ILR 1994 KAR 230, has
observed at Paragraph Nos.8 to 10 and 15, reads as follows:
" 8. It is a managerial function vested in an employer to
take disciplinary action against the employee; it is for the
employer to decide to initiate disciplinary action or not.
Similarly, an employer can always keep his employee
under suspension, provided, the emoluments payable to
the employee under the terms of employment are paid
(subject to any other conditions of service as to the
reduced emoluments, like payment of subsistence
allowances). The validity or invalidity of the action of the
employer, so long as the employer's action an the
relationship between the parties are not governed by
statutory provisions, cannot be examined by the Court,
except, in a case where compensation or damages is
awardable. In the case of wrongful dismissal, a private

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


employee (not governed by any statutory provisions) can
seek a declaration of the invalidity of the dismissal not for
the purpose of reinstatement, but only for compensation.
9. As a corollary to the above principle, it should follow
that, an employer cannot be restrained from initiating an
action for the purpose of deciding whether the employee
should be dismissed or punished in any manner. If the
ultimate order of dismissal cannot be challenged so as to
get a decree for reinstatement, can it be that, the said
object can be realised in advance by restraining the
employer from proceeding to dismiss an employee. In
fact, at the initial stage, when employer resolves to hold
an enquiry, if cannot be held that the employees is bound
to be dismissed. Intention of the employer at this initial
stage, is relevant, unless, this intention continues to
pervade the entire proceedings leading to a mala fide
order of dismissal (or of any punishment). On proof of
such an intention, vitiating the proceedings, the employee
can always seek damages. The basic principle is that, Civil
Court is preclude from enforcing a contract of service.
10. In Sirsi Municipality by its President Sirsi v. Cecelia
Kom Francis Tellis MANU/SC/0066/1973 :
(1973)ILLJ226SC an employee of a Municipality sued for a
declaration that her dismissal was illegal and void. Since
service conditions were statutory, such a suit was held as
maintainable and the remedy of an employee of a
statutory body is not confined to damages. In this
connection, the scope of the relevant principle was stated
by the Supreme Court. At page 857, the Court held :

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


"The cases of dismissal of a servant fall under
three broad heads. The first head relates to the
relationship of master and servant governed
purely contract of employment. Any breach of
contract in such a case is enforced by a suit for
wrongful dismissal and damages. Just as a
contract of employment is not capable of
specific performance similarly breach of
contract of employment is not capable of
finding a declaratory judgment of subsistence
of employment. A declaration of unlawful
termination and restoration to service in such a
case of contract of employment would be
indirectly an instance of specific performance
of contract for personal services. Such a
declaration is not permissible under the law of
Specific Relief Act.
The second type of cases of master and
servant arises under Industrial Law. Under that
branch of law a servant who is wrongly
dismissed may be reinstated. This is a special
provisions under industrial law. This relief is a
departure from the reliefs available under the
India Contract Act and the Specific Relief Act
which do not provide for reinstatement of a
servant. The third category of cases of master
and servant arises in regard to the servant in
the employment of the State or of other public

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


or local authorities or Bodies created under
Statute.
Termination or dismissal of what is described
as a pure contract of master and servant is not
declared to be a nullity however wrongfully or
illegal it may be. The reason is that dismissal
in breach of contract is remedied by damages.
In the cases of servant of the State or of local
authorities or statutory bodies, Courts have
declared kin appropriate cases the dismissal to
be invalid, if the dismissal is contrary to Rules
of natural justice or if the dismissal is in
violation of the provisions of the Statutes.
Apart from the intervention of statute there
would not be declaration of nullity in the case
of termination or dismissal of a servant of the
State or of other local authorities or statutory
bodies."
The Supreme Court clearly laid down that breach of
contract of employment is not capable of founding a
declaratory judgment of subsistence of employment. I am
of the view that if the entire terror of the plaint is to
protect the subsistence of a private employment and
nothing more, no purpose will be served by entertaining
such a suit.
15. Therefore, in the cases not covered by the Industrial
Disputes Act, or by another statute and the employment
is a private employment, remedy of the employee will be

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


to sue for damages in the case of an illegal termination of
services; he cannot insist before the Civil Court that he
should be continued in service; he cannot achieve the
same result of subsisting in service unhindered, by
recourse to an action to restrain the employer from
proceeding in a manner that may lead to the termination
of service. Civil Court's jurisdiction to grant such a relief is
barred by necessary implication."

17. This Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. and
Ors. V. H.R. Thimappa Gowda reported in 2007 (4) KarLJ
654 at Para-26 has held as follows:
"26. On the said issue relating to damages Sri Poonacha,
learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, in rebuttal of
the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the
defendants, at the outset, indicated the nature of the
prayers made with regard to the damages in the original
plaint as well as the amended plaint. After referring to the
same, the learned Counsel contended that the contention
advanced by the learned Counsel for the defendant that
the claim for damages is time barred and as such the
amendment application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of
CPC ought not to have been allowed is without substance
for the reason that the grant of damages a consequential
relief as provided for in Sub-Section (2) of Section 40 of
the Specific Relief Act and the proviso to Sub-section (2)
would clearly indicate that where no such damages have
been claimed in the plaint, the Court shall at any stage of

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


the proceeding allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint on
such terms as may be just for including such claim. The
learned Counsel therefore emphasised that not only the
plaintiff had sought for such assessment of damages but
also the provision referred to by him would clearly
indicate that even if such prayer was not made, it is the
duty of the Court to permit such amendment at any
stage, The learned Counsel placed reliance on the
decision in the case of Leach and Company Ltd v. Jardine
Skinner and Co. MANU/SC/0009/1957, V.R. Nathan v.
Mac Laboratories (P) Ltd. AIR 1975 Mad 1891, M.R.K. Rau
v. Corporation, City of Bangalore MANU/KA/0063/1992 :
AIR1992Kant411, Hoysala Blow Moulders (India) Limited
v. Surath Goods Transport Service 1997(1) KAR.LJ.303
and contended that the said decisions rendered in
interpretation of Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act
would clearly mandate that such power to allow
amendment for grant of damages is a power which is
inherent in the Court and such a right cannot be denied to
the plaintiff by relying on the provisions of Order 6 Rule
17 CPC or Limitation Act to indicate that the amendment
could not be allowed on the ground that the relief is time
barred."

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The
Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance reported
in AIR 2017 SC 1647 at Paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 has held as
follows:

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


" 7. We may state at the outset that it was conceded at
the Bar that if the employee of a cooperative society is
covered by the definition of 'workman' within the meaning
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and claims a relief of
reinstatement, in that event the Cooperative Court will
not have jurisdiction to entertain such a claim, inasmuch
as, relief of reinstatement cannot be granted by the
Cooperative Court. Such a relief can only be granted by
the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal constituted
under the Industrial Disputes Act having regard to the
fact that special and complete machinery for this purpose
is provided under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands ousted. This
is so held by this Court consistently in a number of
1
judgments . These observations are made on the
premise that even if it is accepted that the Cooperative
Court established under the Act is a substitute of a Civil
Court, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant relief
would not go beyond the jurisdiction which has been
vested in the Civil Court. When admittedly the Civil Court
does not have jurisdiction to grant any such relief and its
jurisdiction is barred in view of the law laid down in the
aforesaid judgment, as a fortiori, the jurisdiction of the
Cooperative Court shall also stand barred. We may also
clarify one more aspect. Contract of personal services is
not enforceable under the common law. Section 14, read
with Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963,
specifically bars the enforcement of such a contract. It is
for this reason the principle of law which is well
established is that the Civil Court does not have the

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


jurisdiction to grant relief of reinstatement as giving of
such relief would amount to enforcing the contract of
personal services. However, as laid down in the cases
referred to above, and also in Executive Committee of
Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Ors. v. Lakshmi
Narain and Ors. MANU/SC/0052/1979: (1976) 2 SCC
58, there are three exceptions to the aforesaid Rule
where the contract of personal services can be enforced:

(a) in the case of a public servant who has been
dismissed from service in contravention of Article
311 of the Constitution of India;

(b) in the case of an employee who could be
reinstated in an industrial adjudication by the
Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal; and (c) in
the case of a statutory body, its employee could be
reinstated when it has acted in breach of the
mandatory obligations imposed by the statute.

8. Even when the employees falling under any of the
aforesaid three categories raise dispute qua their
termination, the Civil Court is not empowered to grant
reinstatement and the remedy would be, in the first two
categories, by way of writ petition Under Article 226 of
the Constitution or the Administrative Tribunal Act, as the
case may be, and in the third category, it would be under
the Industrial Disputes Act. An employee who does not
fall in any of the aforesaid exceptions cannot claim
reinstatement. His only remedy is to file a suit in the Civil
Court seeking declaration that termination was wrongful

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


and claim damages for such wrongful termination of
services. Admittedly, the Appellant Corporation is not a
'State' Under Article 12 of the Constitution. The
Respondent also cannot be treated as a
Government/public servant as he was not under the
employment of any Government. He was also not
'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act as he was
working as Manager with the Appellant Corporation.

9. In the aforesaid conspectus, we have to examine as to
whether this power which is available with the Civil Court
to grant damages is now given to the Cooperative Court
Under Section 91 of the Act. We may also mention at this
stage that some of the States have statutes which contain
provisions regarding management and Regulations of the
cooperative society, where specific machinery under these
State Cooperative Societies Acts is provided for resolution
of employment disputes as well, between the cooperative
societies and its employees, that too by excluding the
applicability of labour laws. No doubt, in such cases, the
disputes between the cooperative societies and it
employees, including the workmen, would be dealt with
by such machinery and the general Act, like the
Industrial Disputes Act, would not be applicable (See
Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Addl. Labour
Commissioner and Ors. MANU/SC/7040/2007 : (2007)
11 SCC 756 and Dharappa v. Bijapur Coop. Milk
Producers Societies Union Ltd. MANU/SC/7367/2007:
(2007) 9 SCC 109). Pertinently, in the instant case,
Section 91 specifically excludes the disputes between the

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


cooperative society as employer and its 'workmen'.
Ultimately, the outcome depends upon the powers that
are given to the Cooperative Court or the stipulated
tribunal created under such Acts. It is in this hue we
have to find out as to whether Section 91 of the Act at
hand empowers Cooperative Courts to decide such
disputes."

19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Puneet
Sachdeva v. IndusInd Bank and Others reported in 2026
SCC OnLine All 2063 at Para-49 has held as follows:
" 49. In the light of the above discussion, it is
true that the civil court cannot grant any relief of
permanent and mandatory injunction in this matter
but the plaintiff can show that his dismissal by the
defendant Bank was wrong and he can also claim
damages for his wrongful dismissal from the Bank. It
is true that he cannot be reinstated in the service of
the defendant Bank and his only remedy is to claim
damages from the Bank, for which, the civil court
has the jurisdiction. In view of this, the civil court
had the jurisdiction for examining the above facts
and for awarding the relief of damages, as such, the
trial court has erred by concluding that the civil court
lacked inherent jurisdiction in this matter."

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


20. As per principles of law laid down in the above
judgments, in the case of this nature where there is a contract
of employment and the employee is not workmen but under the
managerial and administrative cadre having functions of
governance and administration is terminated, the civil courts
have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues whether the
termination is correct or not. Since the plaintiff is not a
workman, he does not have remedy before the Labour Court
and also before the Industrial Tribunal. Also as held by this
Court in W.P.No.11869/2017 as discussed above, the writ
petition is not maintainable since the defendant-Bank is not a
State/Nationalized Bank and it is a private bank. Therefore, the
remedy is available to the plaintiff to file a suit for claiming
damages. Thus, the suit is maintainable under Section 9 of
CPC as filing suit in these type of cases is not either expressly
or impliedly barred by law. Though the suit for either
permanent injunction or mandatory injunction is not
maintainable in these nature of service matters but the suit is
maintainable for claiming damages and before claiming
damages it is burden on the plaintiff to prove that the order of

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


termination is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the civil
court has jurisdiction to decide regarding adjudication and that
there shall have to be adjudication upon the merit of the order
of termination. Therefore, in this regard, for claiming damages
the suit is maintainable. Hence, the trial Court on erroneous
assumption and misconstruing the facts in the cases placed
reliance, rejected the plaint is not correct. Thus, the trial Court
in rejecting the plaint is liable to be set aside.


21. The appellant/plaintiff has prayed relief in this
appeal praying permission to file an application for amendment
of the plaint seeking damages. The plaintiff has not sought the
relief of damages in the plaint and simply sought relief of
declaration and mandatory injunction. As submitted by both
the learned counsels, the plaintiff has crossed the age of
superannuation, therefore, prayer (b) regarding reinstating the
plaintiff into the service is not maintainable. Now the plaintiff is
seeking permission to file application for an amendment of the
plaint, for damages.

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


22. Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, reads
as follows:
"40. Damages in lieu of, or in addition to,
injunction.—
(1) The plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction under
section 38, or mandatory injunction under section 39,
may claim damages either in addition to, or in
substitution for, such injunction and the court may, if it
thinks fit, award such damages.
(2) No relief for damages shall be granted under this
section unless the plaintiff has claimed such relief in his
plaint:
Provided that where no such damages have been
claimed in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the
proceedings, allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint on
such terms as may be just for including such claim.
(3) The dismissal of a suit to prevent the breach of an
obligation existing in favour of the plaintiff shall bar his
right to sue for damages for such breach."


23. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the
Specific Relief Act stipulates that if the plaintiff has not claimed
relief for damages in the plaint then liberty shall be granted to
the plaintiff to seek permission for claiming damages at any
stage of proceedings then the court may consider the same as

- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025


per law. Therefore, if plaintiff makes an application for
amendment of the plaint, the trial Court shall consider the same
in accordance with law. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons,
I answer point Nos.1 and 3 in the ‘Affirmative’ and point No.2 in
the ‘Negative’ and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed and the matter is
remitted to the concerned Civil Court for
adjudication of the case on its merits as per
law.


ii. The impugned order passed on I.A.No.1
filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC in
O.S.No.1964/2022 on the file of the XXVII
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, is set aside.


iii. In case application seeking amendment of
plaint is filed, then the same shall be
considered in accordance with law.


iv. All contentions insofar as considering
amendment is left open.

- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56249
RFA No. 539 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010144272025



v. The plaintiff and defendants shall appear
before the trial court on 29.10.2026
without expecting any notice from the court.


Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE





SMJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53