(1) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi refusing to hold, as contended by the defendant/petitioner, that the suit by the plaintiff/respondent was not maintainable; as the issue (1) reads 'in its present from'. The brief facts which alone are sufficient for the disposal of this revision petition are that the plaintiff had been working for about ten years prior to the suit, as Assistant in the National Development Corporation, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. 1956. Though it is stated that the Government owns all the shares of the said Company the provisions of the Companies Act alone would apply, subject to such regulations as the Company might have framed in the matter of the service conditions of its employee.
(2) What led to the filing of the present suit, out of which this revision petition arises, was the issue of an office memo dated 2.1.1972 on the basis of an earlier memorandum dated 1.10.1971 warning the plaintiff to be careful in future since he was found guilty of misconduct for the reasons mentioned. In reply to the memorandum dated 1.10.71 the plaintiff furnished an Explanationn on 8.10.1971 because the plaintiff's Explanationn which was considered, was not found satisfactory; he was warned to be careful in future. It is needless for the purpose of the present revision petition to even notice in any detail the averments in the memorandum dated 1.10.71 which sets out certain acts of disobedience of certain orders and his absence from duty without permission for a portion of a certain working day.
(3) In the present suit the plaintiff, who reserved his right to take appropriate legal steps as he might be advised by his lawyer besides the claim for damages (put in Rs. 20,000.00), prayed that the two memos which, he said, had been manipulated, and amounted to adverse remarks concerning him, required to be expunged since the same were malafide (i.e.) based on ulterior motive. The objection, among others, was rightly taken by the defendant that the suit was not maintainable. It was further contended that a suit for declaration alone without any prayer for consequential relief was also bad. The following preliminary issues were framed : (1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form (2) Does the Court have jurisdiction to try the suit
(4) Issues 1 and 2 were heard as prelimi- nary issues. The learned Judge found, on issue No. 1, that the suit was maintainable, and, on issui No. 2, that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.
(5) It seemed to me even at the outset that the present suit was 'a ridiculous one' in the language of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Rambhajan Kunwar v. Gurcharen Kunwar I.L.R. All 14. That was a suit by the son even during the life time of his father for the cancellation of ''a document, apparently a will''. The surprising part of it was that the learned Subordinate Judge had held that the suit would lie, and, on the merits, gave the plaintiff a decree. Allowing the appeal, it was pointed out that since the father possessed power up to the hour of his death, provided he was competent to make a valid will, to cancel the will and to make a totally different will to his property, no party could come in court & successfully claim to have the will of a living person set aside. Though that bears no precise analogy to the present one the principle of the said decision would apply to any case where a right such as the plaintiff claims he has, is non existent in law.
(6) Even before the lower court, as also before me, a number of decisions bearing upon the right of a Government servant, enjoying the protection and benefits of statutory rules framed in this behalf as well as the guarantee afforded by Article 311 of the Constitution were cited. It would be needless to discuss them because they would not afford any parallel to a person like the plaintiff who cannot in any sense of the word be described as a Government servant.
(7) I have gone through the plaint carefully ; it does rot even mention that there was any contract between him and the defendant or any other rule having the force of law which had been violated by the said communications sought to be expunged. If the plaintiff thought they were defamatory of him he should have pursued other remedies in this respect like claiming damages in respect of it. But a suit. such as the present, which merely wants that the employer should think differently of him than what he has done during the continuance of his employment is not a suit to enforce any right known to law. For this reason I differ from the first issue and find that the suit filed by the plaintiff for the above said relief against the defendant is not maintainable.